Contest conducted by Marc Smith
Welcome to the third set of 2025. At the end of this month, we will begin publishing the leader-board for this year’s annual competition. A reminder that only your best nine scores during the year count, so entering every month means you will be able to discard your three weakest results.
We start this month with congratulations to panel members on successes at the U.S. Spring Nationals that took place in Memphis this month. The first weekend brought victory for Zia Mahmood in the Kay Platinum Pairs, playing with Kevin Rosenberg.
In the prestigious Vanderbilt Teams, three panel members made it to the semi-final stage, and played against each other, thus guaranteeing our panel representation in the final. Sjoert Brink and Michal Klukowski finished on the losing end of that match-up, with Cedric Lorenzini advancing to the final. A 40-IMP victory then completed the grand slam of US National knockout team events, Cedric’s Fleisher team having won the Spingold in 2023 and the Soloway in 2024.
The Nationals closed with another success for panel members, Cathy and Sophia Baldysz winning a thrilling victory in the Women’s Open Swiss Teams.
This month’s guest panelist is the solo winner of the January competition. 41-year-old Erdem Öztürk from Türkiye lives in Istanbul. He started playing bridge as an 18-year-old student, and he was a member of Türkiye’s representatives at the 2006 World University Teams Cup in Tianjin. More recently, he reached the Round of 16 of the Mixed Teams at the 2019 European Transnational Teams. He currently teaches bridge to both adults and kids, mostly online.
We are delighted to welcome to the panel a stalwart of the Swedish Open team for many years, and one of Scandinavia’s leading bidding theorists, Mats Nilsland. Having made his debut in the Swedish Open team at the 1972 Olympiad, Mats collected bronze medals from the Rosenblum Cup in 1986 and 1998, and from the 1991 Bermuda Bowl. He also finished second in the European Teams Championship in 1991 and 1999. More recently, he claimed a silver medal at the 2018 European Senior Teams. He wrote the definitive book on the Swedish adaptation of the world’s most popular bidding system, ‘5-card Majors - The Scanian Way’, which was published in 2019.
Half of this month’s problems have been sent to me - so don’t blame me if they’re too hard 😊. Hand 3 comes from panelist Marty Bergen, and three come from regular competition entrants: Hand 2 Paul Dubois of San Diego, California, Hand 5 Simon Mostyn of UK, and Hand 7 comes from Norway’s Paolo Romanello. 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.
Well, this set was a real mishmash, with the panel producing a majority vote on only two of the eight hands. Indeed, they provided us with what must be a record of 43 different choices on the eight deals (including one deal with votes for eight different actions and one with seven candidates). Does this mean that there will be plenty of high-scoring options for competitors? Let’s find out…
This is looking like a very demanding set for competitors, with the most popular action chosen by competition entrants scoring ‘10’ on just one of the eight hands. Voting with the largest group of competitors this month scores only 45/80 (significantly down from 57/80 in February). The average score this month is 47.62 (also down, from 54.82 on Set 25-02). There is plenty for the panel to discuss on this month’s hands, so let’s get to it…
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
2NT |
10 |
13 |
15 |
|
3♣ |
8 |
5 |
16 |
|
3♥ |
6 |
3 |
2 |
|
3NT |
6 |
3 |
3 |
|
4♥ |
4 |
1 |
0 |
|
3♠ |
2 |
1 |
12 |
|
2♠ |
0 |
0 |
36 |
|
4♠ |
0 |
0 |
10 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
3♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 3.32
This was a tricky hand for the panel, with six different actions attracting support, but there was almost a majority choice. For competitors, it was a real disaster, producing the lowest-scoring hand we have ever had. More than half seem to have assumed that partner’s 2♥ bid showed some sort of spade raise. The largest group of competitors (more than a third in all) also chose the distinct underbid of 2♠. To realize how inadequate that would be, note that some panelists are complaining that we did not jump to 2♠ at our first turn.
More than half of the panel were clear about the meaning of partner’s 2♥, so let’s start there.
WENFEI WANG: 2NT. Partner’s 2♥ is a natural bid, showing 16+ HCP, so 2NT from me is invitational.
SIMON DE WIJS: 2NT. This 2♥ bid is natural. With other strong hands, partner would start with a 2♣ cue-bid. I would have bid 2♠ on the previous round by the way (and cue-bid on stronger hands with five spades).
LARRY COHEN: 2NT. I think 2♥ is natural (2♣ would be the cue-bid). Accordingly, I am bidding notrump, although I am a bit worried that I should be bidding 3NT. On the other hand, this gives us more chance of reaching hearts opposite something like x/KJ109xx/AKxx/AQ.
Not a bad assessment of partner’s hand, Larry.
ANDY HUNG: 2NT. Partner's 2♥ is natural. I do have a good filler (the ♥Q) but, just in case partner only has only a five-card suit, I will continue with a forward-going 2NT.
Others were less clear about the 2♥ bid.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 2NT. Hedge!
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 2NT. My partner has a strong hand, either with hearts or with spade support, so I will bid 2NT now to show some extra values and await developments.
PAUL MARSTON: 2NT. Not 3NT without a double stop in clubs. If partner continues with 3♠, I will raise to 4♠.
CHRISTIAN MARI/BARNET SHENKIN: 2NT.
HANOI RONDON: 2NT. Let's show some values, a stopper and leave space for partner to describe his hand further.
JESSICA LARSSON: 2NT. At least this is forcing. 2♠ should also be forcing after 2♥ in my book, but not I’m not certain that partner will agree.
ANDREW ROBSON: 2NT. I confess I may have jumped to 2♠ last time. Now I need to show some values.
MARTY BERGEN: 2NT. I could have less for this, but I want to preserve all options.
A couple thought they knew enough.
SALLY BROCK: 3NT. I think 2♥ is natural (2♣ would be a cue), and I am maximum with a bit more than a club stopper.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 3NT.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 3NT. Hoping to make this.
Another small faction raised hearts, although perhaps more as an alternative hedge to Zia’s above.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 3♥. We have a maximum for our first bid (2♠ would also have been very acceptable). On top of that, is 2♥ really a cue-bid (why not 2♣?) Can't our partner hold a strong, one-suited hand with hearts? An all-terrain bid seems our best choice.
LIZ McGOWAN: 3♥. This is puzzling – where are all the hearts? Does South have a weak hand with a long suit, or did he psyche and partner’s 2♥ is natural?? Whatever, I have to show some strength now. I think 3♣ would be natural but could be much weaker, so I shall play “Pass the Puzzle” and hope partner knows what to do.
MATS NILSLAND: 3♥. Showing extra values. I am aiming for 4♠ if partner has support.
Erdem quickly gets his side to the best contract, although he will clearly be surprised by what happens next!
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 4♥. I guess this shows a singleton with a maximum hand for my 1♠ bid.
Perhaps the second-largest group on the panel have the best of the debate…
ALAN MOULD: 3♣. 2♥ is natural in my world, and a hand too strong to overcall 1♥ (cue Marc to remonstrate that animal doesn't exist). I have enough for game, so I will bid 3♣ and then 3NT to express doubt and let partner do the wrong thing.
You’re right, Alan, I would have avoided this problem by starting with a 1♥ overcall on the East hand.
Migry’s analysis seems to be right on the money…
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 3♣. Partner’s 2♥ bid should be natural – he did not know that South was going to bid hearts so, if he has a “big double”, there is nothing for him to do but bid his long suit. 3♣ forces to game, keeping all strains in play.
DAVID BIRD: 3♣. Partner could have cue-bid 2♣ to show a strong hand, so his 2♥ bid shows hearts. I am super-max for my 1♠ and will head for game now. My 3♣ cue-bid seeks more information.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 3♣.
Although he comes up with one of the panel’s most popular solutions for now, it’s not clear from his comment that Joey is on the same wavelength, as he seems to think he is going to play in spades.
JOEY SILVER: 3♣. Personally, I would have bid 2♠ on the previous round., but that is water under the bridge. Now I’ll show my second colour, to be followed by a cue-bid of hearts if given the chance. This is a very good hand on the bidding: game I take for granted, and slam is my primary interest at this point.
When the deal occurred in a knock-out match, one of our teammates found himself with this problem, and came up with the same unsuccessful solution as Jill.
JILL MEYERS: 3♠. Honestly, I am not quite sure what 2♥ is - obviously a good hand, but is it a good hand with three spades perhaps? Regardless, I am not broke, so 3♠ would be my bid to show a fifth spade and some HCP.
So, what is partner’s 2♥? Would he not cue-bid 2♣ with a good spade raise? At the table, East had Q/AJ87xx/AKxx/AJ. Yes, a 1♥ overcall on the first round would perhaps have been better, but he was seduced by 19 HCP and, of course, he was not to know that South was going to confuse the auction by bidding hearts before he could do so.
With South holding only four hearts (K-10-9-x), 4♥ loses only one spade and two trumps. 3NT is hopeless, but not as bad as the contract my expert teammates ended in – concluding that 2♥ agreed spades, West jumped to 3♠, and East (assuming his partner knew what was going on) passed!!! Of course, we conceded a boring -420 defending 4♥ at our table.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
5♥ |
10 |
15 |
14 |
|
5♣ |
8 |
6 |
10 |
|
4♠ |
8 |
4 |
14 |
|
5NT |
7 |
1 |
3 |
|
6♥ |
7 |
0 |
10 |
|
6♦ |
6 |
0 |
1 |
|
4NT |
5 |
0 |
10 |
|
4♥ |
3 |
0 |
31 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
5 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.82
Although only just a majority, this was the panel’s largest vote for any single action in this set. It was another tough board for many competition entrants, with just over a third choosing to give simple preference in game, whilst every member of the panel was looking for slam. Let’s start with the majority…
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 5♥. 4♦ was described as 5-5 "strong". Let’s see if we agree on that definition.
MARTY BERGEN: 5♥. When in doubt about slam, invite.
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 5♥. If I had to guess the final contract, it would be 6♥. But, partner may be stretching here, especially with 6-5, so I will give him some room.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 5♥. Asking for a spade control to bid six or seven.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 5♥. If we have a spade control, I want to be in slam.
LARRY COHEN: 5♥. It sounds like I am looking for a spade control. Or, you could argue that I am just inviting slam. Either way, I have it.
MATS NILSLAND: 5♥. If 4♦ is strong, I want to invite slam. Some think 5♥ asks specifically for a spade control. OK, if so, I can live with that.
HANOI RONDON: 5♥. Normally this asks for good trumps but, when there has been some competition, it asks partner to bid slam if the he controls the opponents’ suit.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 5♥.
ANDY HUNG: 5♥. If I was sure that partner would understand 5♣ as a cue-bid, I would do that. In the absence of specific agreements, I'll jump to 5♥, which I hope is asking for a spade control.
David points out why choosing this slam try may be better than the alternative.
DAVID BIRD: 5♥. Bidding 5♥ is the traditional way to ask for a spade control. If partner continues with 5♠, I will make a grand slam try with 6♣. To bid 5♣ instead would not tell partner which suit I am agreeing.
SIMON DE WIJS: 5♥. 4♠ would be our way of setting hearts, so this shows a heart fit without a spade control. My worry I that I am perhaps a bit too strong for this bid.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 5♥. This should ask for a spade control, to get to 6♥. It's not clear how we can get to a grand slam, if that is right, although it's hard to imagine what more partner could need looking at what I've got. If partner now bids 5♠, I think 5NT should be ace-asking and suggesting that we may have enough for a grand slam.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 5♥. Do we have enough to insist on slam (if spades are controlled)? We believe that is a “Yes”. 4NT followed by 5♥ would be invitational, also denying a spade control, but with a bit less in our hand.
Andrew was one of only a couple of panel members to even consider not looking for slam.
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♥. Quantitative - bid six with a spade control. This is marginal as partner may have been pushing. My second choice would be to rein it in with 4♥, feeling that six may be one down on the (failing) diamond finesse.
Most of the rest opted for alternative slam tries. This was a popular choice.
PAUL MARSTON: 5♣. I am worth one try for slam.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 5♣. I hope it won't be passed out. If I had spade control, I would have bid 4♠. Partner doesn’t yet know which suit I am agreeing so, if he bids 5♦, I will continue with 5♥ only as we may still have two spade losers. He should then raise with a spade control.
SALLY BROCK: 5♣. I think this is a cue for partner. I can’t bid clubs naturally unless I jump. This must also deny a spade control. I am going to bid a slam anyway - my rule is that if I have two key cards I make a slam try, and here I have three.
ALAN MOULD: 5♣. Yes, well - how strong is strong? I have seen this done on AJxxx squared and announced as FG. 5♣ will get us to slam when it is there, and also get to us to 5-red when it is going off. I have great sympathy with 4♥, which could be right. I think xx/KJxxx/AKxxxx/void probably has to bid 4♦...
LIZ McGOWAN: 5♣. It is tempting to just blast 6♥, but that might a) miss 7♥ or b) have two losers when partner has stretched with something like x/KJTxxx/AKxxx/x. I would really like to use 6-Ace Keycard – over the 5♦ response I could ask for specific queens – but I suspect we have not agreed to play that.
You’re right about that, Liz 😊
JOEY SILVER: 5♣. I plan on looking for a grand slam should partner bid 5♠. I will bid 5NT and then 6♥ over 6♦ diamonds and, hopefully, partner will understand my intentions.
A handful took a third route.
WENFEI WANG: 4♠. Slam try.
JILL MEYERS: 4♠. Wow I have a good hand. The possibilities are 4♠, 5♣ and 5NT. I will start with 4♠ to see what that elicits from partner.
With our values essentially key cards, we would quite like partner to Blackwood, so why not leave him room…
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♠. I have a monster. I would like partner to bid 4NT now. What is 5♣ here?
BARNET SHENKIN: 4♠. I would like to cue 5♣, but I am worried partner may not interpret my intentions. 5♥ is also a possibility, but I’ll take my chances with 4♠ as the odds indicate that partner likely has a singleton.
Jessica is the only one to insist on slam.
JESSICA LARSSON: 5NT. Pick a slam. This is way too aggressive with most of my partners, but it states 'strong' now, so… 😊
More and more pairs are agreeing to play Leaping (and non-Leaping) Michaels, and will recognize the hand when it is in front of their face. How many have considered how to continue when it actually happens? Some discussion topics here for regular partnerships, I suspect.
Here, we have a great hand when partner shows a strong two-suiter. At the table, partner had x/KJ10xx/AKQxx/KQ, so slam in either red suit was an easy make. Everyone who bids something other than 4♥ or 5♦ is likely to get there on this combination.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♦ |
10 |
9 |
3 |
|
3♦ |
9 |
7 |
9 |
|
4♣ |
7 |
4 |
18 |
|
5♣ |
7 |
0 |
6 |
|
4♥ |
6 |
3 |
6 |
|
3♥ |
6 |
1 |
25 |
|
5NT |
5 |
1 |
14 |
|
3♠ |
5 |
0 |
3 |
|
4♠ |
4 |
1 |
10 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
6 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.90
The panel offer seven different solutions to this tricky problem but, although no single action comes close to attracting a majority, two similar choices dominate the field. With competitors offering a couple more equally valid answers, I’m afraid the marking after the top two is fairly arbitrary, so everyone else scores close to average on the deal. Let’s start with a lone voice that seems to make some sense and, if right, will likely earn a big swing for her side.
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 5NT. This is a question of partner’s style. Do they pattern it out with random 5413 hands? I would not, choosing 2NT instead. I hope partner is on the same wavelength and is void in diamonds. If that’s the case, we have a slam, but it could be in any one of the three suits. I could make a fancy bid like 4♦, but partner might be confused about my intent.
One large faction knew roughly what partner had, but hoped he could tell them even more,
ZIA MAHMOOD: 3♦. Waiting for clarification - is he 5-4-0-4 or 5-4-1-3?
BARNET SHENKIN: 3♦. Maybe partner is 5-4-1-3 or 5-4-0-4. Waiting.
JESSICA LARSSON: 3♦. Flexible. Tell me more about your hand, partner.
WENFEI WANG: 3♦. Game-forcing with no stop in diamonds.
DAVID BIRD: 3♦. My hand is good in context. Rather than make a further bid in one of partner's suits, I will wait economically to hear something more from him.
That all sounds fine and dandy, but what clever descriptive bid are you expecting from partner to show his good 5-4-1-3 shape and no diamond honour?
JOEY SILVER: 3♦. The non-cue-bid. I am looking for 6♣ should partner actually hold four of them, or a prosaic 4♠ if not. The trick, of course, is to figure out how many clubs partner has.
Mats also waits, but he already has a fair idea where he is headed.
MATS NILSLAND: 3♦. Fourth suit. We should be in some game, but which one? 3♣ doesn't have to be a four-card suit but, with the force taken in the short trump hand, it might still be the best of our seven-card fits.
The largest faction do something similar, but leave the decision to partner.
SALLY BROCK: 4♦. Surely this must be ‘pick a game’.
PAUL MARSTON: 4♦. The perfect hand - club support and nothing wasted in diamonds. Over to you, partner.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♦. The best hand – an anti-splinter.
LARRY COHEN: 4♦. In America, we call this a "Bluhmer" after the late Lou Bluhm. It shows all working cards with nothing wasted in partner's known short suit. Probably not the way to score well in a bidding contest, but it is a perfect description here.
Sometimes, you just never know, Larry…. And Jill is also not expecting top marks.
JILL MEYERS: 4♦. I may be the only panelist to make this bid, but I am making an impossible 4♦ bid, otherwise known as a Bluhmer (for the late Lou Bluhm). I cannot possibly hold diamonds, so this tells partner I have a great hand for this auction with nothing wasted in diamonds.
ANDY HUNG: 4♦. They call it the Bluhmer, right? Nothing wasted in diamonds, good hand.
HANOI RONDON: 4♦. I didn't know (or remember) what a Bluhmer or Anti-Splinter was. So, I'll celebrate by making use of it.
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♦. Time to show partner our super hand in context. Maybe partner can still be 5-4-1-3?
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 4♦. Opposite a singleton diamond, we have good hand. I will let partner choose the game. If he has good spades, we can play there, but I am open to 4♥ or 5♣ also.
The rest were all prepared to suggest a suit. Let’s start with those who thought hearts may be the place to play…
ALAN MOULD: 3♥. I have a great hand now, and this seems a sensible way forward. 4♣ sounds like at least five of them to me.
Is 3♥ forcing? It doesn’t sound like either Marty or Sophia think it would be, hence…
MARTY BERGEN: 4♥. When I submitted this problem, I thought it was difficult, and I still do. Obviously, on this auction, I have a great hand. I just wish I had an economical forcing bid, but I cannot find one.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♥. I've denied a primary spade fit or four hearts but, in light of the 3♣ bid, I have a good hand. I'll let partner choose accordingly.
P-O has a completely different interpretation, and he is perhaps right if 3♥ would be forcing, as wouldn’t that be the bid to suggest playing game in a Moysian heart fit? Would I try this with an unfamiliar partner….?
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 4♥. This should be a cue suggesting clubs.
How about just agreeing clubs?
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♣. Forcing, of course. We would prefer to hold five cards in the suit, but nobody's perfect. 4♦ would probably also show a hand of our kind - will the panel agree?
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♣. We can be making slam.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♣.
LIZ McGOWAN: 4♣. I am not sure of partner’s exact shape, but expect a diamond shortage. All my cards are working, so time to show some strength. Partner will expect a fifth club, but if she has extra length in a Major she will not raise clubs…
Only Cathy commits to playing in spades.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♠. I have the perfect honour structure for playing in a 5-2 fit.
Whether East has three clubs or four, it seems to me that playing in that suit is likely to best, assuming the defense will attack with diamonds. If you only have seven-card fits, you would surely prefer to take the force in the short trump hand, which can only be clubs.
The East hand was AQxxx/KQ10x/x/AJx. At the table, friendly breaks meant that you could make game in spades, hearts and clubs. Hearts seems to be the least good choice, with the long trump hand in a 4-3 fit getting forced at trick two.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♦ |
10 |
9 |
13 |
|
4♥ |
9 |
7 |
22 |
|
6♦ |
8 |
7 |
27 |
|
6NT |
7 |
2 |
7 |
|
4♣ |
5 |
1 |
3 |
|
5♣ |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
4NT |
4 |
0 |
8 |
|
Pass |
2 |
0 |
9 |
|
5♦ |
2 |
0 |
8 |
|
5NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.82
There is no majority vote here, with the panel just about split three ways. With nearly two-thirds of competitors also supporting one of those choices, this is one of the highest-scoring hands in the set. So, is this the time for a scientific approach, or should we just bid what we think we can make?
SALLY BROCK: 6♦. Who knows?
ANDREW ROBSON: 6♦. My best guess.
PAUL MARSTON: 6♦. I don't like to gamble on slam, but this one is too appealing.
SIMON DE WIJS: 6♦. Since I am guessing, I want the opponents to also guess on the lead.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 6♦. It will be difficult to learn what East holds for his 3NT bid, so let's hide that we don't have a spade control from the defenders.
LIZ McGOWAN: 6♦. Partner’s bid may be based on a long club suit she hopes to run, but I am betting mine is longer and runnier. Of course, I may not be able to reach her hand, or they may cash two spades, but I cannot think of a more scientific approach.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 6♦. This may be wrong opposite Jxx/Q10x/xx/AKQJx, but it will be ok if he has Kxx/Q10x/Jx/AKxxx.
A couple took the same approach but came up with a different solution.
MARTY BERGEN: 6NT. I am definitely not proud of this, but I’m hoping that +990 or +1020 will be a good matchpoint score. We could be cold for seven, or have no play for any slam.
HANOI RONDON: 6NT. Partner has the values for an opening bid, but he doesn't rate to have too many wasted HCPs in hearts. I am betting on him having great clubs and at least the ♠K. I bring the tricks, I hope.
The rest opt for trying to identify the best contract.
WENFEI WANG: 4♥. Cue-bid. Slam try.
Larry highlights one significant reason for going slowly.
LARRY COHEN: 4♥. I could just leap to six but, if partner bids 4♠ now, I will try some more for the grand. Partner could have quite a good hand (picture, say, AKx/KJx/J10x/K10xx).
BARNET SHENKIN: 4♥. First cue. I could just bid 6♦ and give North a blind lead, but maybe we can make seven.
Does this not seem like an obvious first step?
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♥. I have a good hand. Let’s see if he can cue-bid 4♠.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♥. I have a monster hand. Depending on what partner has we could make anything from just game to a grand slam. Let’s find out about the spade control first.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. I am praying to hear 4♠ next.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♥.
The largest faction on the panel, just, preferred an alternative with the same objective.
ANDY HUNG: 4♦. Both 4♣ and 5♣ sound natural, so let's set trumps and go for the slow approach. I’m not sure whether I'll get to show the club void, but we do want to try to get to a grand slam. Maybe bidding 4♥ is better, so we can get a better tempo auction after a 4♠ cue-bid from partner (or lack thereof if we're that unlucky?), but might 4♥ be misunderstood as shortness in hearts and a three suited hand?
Erdem summarises the case for the panel’s largest faction.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 4♦. Partner has shown opening values with a heart stopper. So, my hand is worth at least slam. I’ll set the suit with 4♦. If partner bid 4♥, I will have an easy continuation with 5♣ to show the need for a spade control.
MATS NILSLAND: 4♦. A natural slam try, setting the suit as trumps.
Migry comes up with the month’s worst prediction, although her selection does get 10 marks, which is not always the case.
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 4♦. Unanimous panel?
David was tempted, but has been there before.
DAVID BIRD: 4♦. Those who predict a 100% vote for a totally obvious bid are often rebuffed with: "Far from it! The panel was split five ways." So, I will merely say that I have a strong hand with rebiddable diamonds and would like to hear a cue-bid. Surely, it can't have become unfashionable to describe your hand to partner?
JESSICA LARSSON: 4♦. The other option is to jump to slam.
JILL MEYERS: 4♦. I am tempted to just bid 6♦ but, for all I know, we are cold for seven. So, I will set trumps and see what partner has to say.
ALAN MOULD: 4♦. For now. Let's see how partner reacts to this (doubtless by bidding 5♣!)
JOEY SILVER: 4♦. I will play this one straight, and trade off by letting the villains in on what is going on, while exploring to find out if we have a slam or a grand slam.
Cathy is on her own with this approach which, as suggested by others, perhaps risks being misinterpreted.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 4♣.
The big advantage of starting with 4♦ is that you will hear 4♠ from partner. Would his failure to cue-bid in hearts perhaps set alarm bells ringing about the likely distribution of the heart suit after North’s vulnerable pre-empt? Also, marked with at most the ♥Q-J and ♦J in the red suits, is he not very likely to hold A-A-K in the blacks?
At the table, my man bid 6♦, which was unluckily but spectacularly unsuccessful. East held Axx/Q9xx/J/AKJxx so there are 12 top tricks in 6NT. Unfortunately, the defence against 6♦ went heart lead, ruffed, spade return, ruffed, heart ruff, spade ruff, for three down. Even if West realizes that hearts are likely to be 2-7-4-0 around the table, it is still incredibly unlucky to find spades also breaking 7-0. Sadly, even passing 3NT would have scored well above average, as half the field played in 5♦-2!!! Presumably after a similar start.
A spectacular moral victory for Hanoi and Marty, even if they have to settle for 7/10 here. Marty’s prediction that +990 would be a good matchpoint cannot be disputed, but it would also have been an excellent result at IMPs too.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
Pass |
10 |
12 |
29 |
|
3NT |
8 |
8 |
30 |
|
4♥ |
6 |
4 |
24 |
|
4♣ |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
3♥ |
4 |
0 |
14 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.82
At last, a breather for the marker, as there are only a handful of possible choice. No majority vote from the panel, but they are mostly split between two options. For competitors, it is a three-way choice, but everyone scores well enough to make this one of the month’s highest-scoring hands. For some, it was simply a choice of which game…
WENFEI WANG: 3NT. Let’s hope that 3NT is better than 4♥.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 3NT. I don't want to bypass 3NT.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3NT. This is a difficult decision. My partner can double with a medium hand short in clubs. It could be right to play in a suit, as dummy will be able to overruff LHO in clubs.
MATS NILSLAND: 3NT. Perhaps we have a better game (in a 4-4 heart fit), but we have no way to find out.
For others it was a choice between following Hamman and choosing to defend…
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 3NT. I might pass against certain opponents.
SALLY BROCK: 3NT. Maybe I should pass, but that is a bit unilateral.
SIMON DE WIJS: 3NT. I am not sure about this, but partner tries to balance with a double on a lot of shapes, so it's important not to go for the penalty pass in close spots.
Jessica sums up the case for this faction and earns “Comment of the Month” honours for pointing out the malfunction with her equipment.
JESSICA LARSSON: 3NT. Yuck! I don't like pass, 3NT or 4♥, but I have to choose something. When in doubt… 3NT. It would depend a bit on whom I’m playing - some people have very solid vulnerable opening pre-empts, then maybe 4♥ would be a more attractive option. Pass isn't really a good option for a long-time partnership, and I don’t seem to have a 3♥ card in my bidding box.
Larry, also seems to have a problem with his tools…
LARRY COHEN: 4♥. If only there were a 3.5♥ bid available. I have too much to bid only 3♥. I am too afraid to pass, and 3NT feels wrong. Voila!
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 4♥. I am hoping partner is not the optimistically balancing kind.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♥.
LIZ McGOWAN: 4♥. My first thought was 3NT, but I really need the ♣10 for that – it is too likely that South will have a side entry after clubs are cleared. Partner need not have perfect distribution here – she wants to give me the chance to convert for penalties. Next thought was 4♣, to persuade partner to bid her longer Major: but if she is 4-3 in the Majors we would land in the wrong 4-3 fit. Maybe 3♥ is best…
When I first received Christian’s answer, I wondered if there was a translation issue, with 4C (quatre Coeur) being the French for 4♥. But then Barnet piped in with the same choice, so perhaps it is an option of sorts, although Liz explains above why it does not attract more support.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♣.
BARNET SHENKIN: 4♣. Pass or 3NT could easily right too.
The largest faction chooses to take the money…
ZIA MAHMOOD: Pass. The new norm. At least it’s exciting.
ALAN MOULD: Pass. This seems like the mainstream action these days.
ANDY HUNG: Pass. Am I scared? Yep. I hope partner hasn’t balanced with a 4-4-4-1 8-count. Even then, the ♦K and the ♥A would be enough to get a small plus with everyone who bids game on our cards going minus.
PAUL MARSTON: Pass. Let them play for twice the price. This seems to offer much better odds than guessing how many hearts to bid.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
For a couple, the lead problem that is bound to follow a Pass was a factor.
ANDREW ROBSON: Pass. Paper tiger … but my choice of lead is very much part of the problem. It’ll be the ♦A, but I don’t know why I have a bad feeling.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: Pass. Good potential in defence with the diamond lead.
The rest all highlighted the primary reason for passing…
JILL MEYERS: Pass. The choices are Pass, 3NT and 4♥. Any could be right so, rather than pick the wrong game, I'm going to try to go plus defending.
JOEY SILVER: Pass. Not knowing where to declare for a plus, I will shoot it out right here, hoping for +500/800.
David also has a problem with his bidding box.
DAVID BIRD: Pass. We can probably make a game, but it's not certain. Nor do we know which game will be best. (If there was a card in the bidding box with 'The best game' written on it, I would reach for that, rather than pass.)
HANOI RONDON: Pass. I'm confident we'll do better on defense, rather than choosing a game without a source of tricks (3NT) or with trumps breaking badly (4♥).
MARTY BERGEN: Pass. I am taking my plus score. This obviously could be +200 only with an easy vulnerable game but, if partner is light or we play in the wrong game, there is no guarantee that we will go plus on offense.
Partner had Axxx/Qxx/KQxx/Ax. The choices made at the two tables in a match were Pass and 3NT, which garnered +800 and -100 respectively, suggesting perhaps that the choice is not as close as it might at first look. Those who found their way to 4♥ in the 4-3 fit would not only get doubled, but a rude awakening would have quickly followed when South showed out on the first round of trumps.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
4♥ |
10 |
14 |
7 |
|
4♠ |
8 |
9 |
24 |
|
5♦ |
6 |
1 |
6 |
|
Pass |
6 |
1 |
11 |
|
4♦ |
4 |
1 |
21 |
|
3♠ |
3 |
0 |
30 |
|
3NT |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 5.38
This is one of only two hands in the set on which the panel produce a majority vote, and for them it was essentially a two-horse race. Only one panelist does not commit to game, and the competitors’ most popular choice, with almost a third opting for 3♠, received no support at all. Let’s start with those panel members who agree with the second-largest group of competition entrants…
SALLY BROCK: 4♠. I am surely too strong not to bid game.
PAUL MARSTON: 4♠. I can hardly do less.
A number of panelists would have taken action on the previous round.
JILL MEYERS: 4♠. Having failed to bid over 3♥, I have to do something to show signs of life now. Q-x of trumps is good enough for me.
ANDREW ROBSON: 4♠. I would have doubled 3♥ precisely to avoid this guess.
MATS NILSLAND: 4♠. I would have doubled 3♥.
HANOI RONDON: 4♠. Maybe I should have bid 3♠ earlier. I certainly can't just bid 3♠ now, which is what I would do with an ace less and worse trumps.
BARNET SHENKIN/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 4♠.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 4♠. A tough one. We have enough for game, now, but which one? Our second choice, 4♥, would keep the dialog more open, but what if partner bids 5♣? We know our risk in 4♠: the long hand will be forced and we may lose control. However, this is a little bit mitigated by the fact that, most probably, South has only three hearts (or even two sometimes).
Cathy also chose to bid game, but in her long suit rather than partner’s.
CATHY BALDYSZ: 5♦.
Liz was the only one willing to settle for a partscore on the deal.
LIZ McGOWAN: 4♦. Partner’s initial 2♠ overcall has limited her hand, so I am not worried about missing game, more about finding a plus score. Maybe 3♠ is better, but she might lose trump control. If she has a sixth spade, she might convert.
Whilst Marty chooses to punish opponents who may have stepped out of line.
MARTY BERGEN: Pass. Once again, with no assurance of knowing which game we belong in or would make, I'm hoping to take a plus score by defending. And in my experience, on this auction, frisky opponents often have nothing opposite nothing.
The rest all choose to consult partner.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 4♥. Pick a game.
WENFEI WANG: 4♥. Let’s try to find the best game.
ANDY HUNG: 4♥. Choice of games. Partner will assume we have a doubleton spade and, if he advances with 5♣, I'll correct to 5♦.
ALAN MOULD: 4♥. I would probably have bid last time. Now I must force to game.
Joey and Migry both express the same sentiment more forcefully 😊
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 4♥. I must’ve been sleeping on the previous round. Now, it’s clear to offer a choice of games.
JOEY SILVER: 4♥. West's pass over 3♥, to say the least, is craven, and in my opinion losing bridge, but here we are. So, I will make an effort to catch up for my cowardly past inaction.
Larry summarises the case for the majority.
LARRY COHEN: 4♥. I have too much to bid only 4♦, but I don't want to bury partner with 5♦. He will know I can't have three spades from my failure to bid 3♠ earlier (and to now have enough for this). This suggests a doubleton spade and one or both minors and gives him a choice.
JESSICA LARSSON: 4♥. Flexible. Tell me more about your hand, partner.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 4♥. I will be happy to hear 4♠.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 4♥.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♥. It looks like partner has 5-0-4-4 or 5-1-(43), but she can also have some hands with a six-card spade suit. If partner has only five spades, I want to be in a diamond contract, because partner will get shortened in a 5-2 spade fit. I'm bidding this as a choice of games. If partner bids 4♠ I will pass and, if she bid 5♣, I can correct to diamonds.
DAVID BIRD: 4♥. I was close to a double on the first round, and must now head for game. Bidding 5♦ instead may cause us to miss out on a better 4♠ if partner is 6-1-3-3, whilst 4♦ would not give any picture of my strength.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 4♥. Partner has a maximum overcall with a singleton heart. I have a maximum for my pass of 3♥, so I cue-bid to force to game, and I will let him choose the suit.
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♥. Offering a choice of games. 5♦ could be better opposite a weakish five-card spade suit.
4♠ will surely end the auction. With partner holding AKxxx/A/A10xx/Kxx, might he perhaps advance with 5NT over 4♥, enabling us to reach the good 6♦? At the table, spades were 4-2 but diamonds played for one loser, so there were eleven tricks in spades and twelve in diamonds. With both games making easily, languishing in 3♠ or 4♦ is likely to cost your side a game swing.
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
3♣ |
10 |
9 |
23 |
|
3♦ |
9 |
6 |
13 |
|
2♣ |
7 |
3 |
29 |
|
4♦ |
7 |
2 |
1 |
|
5♦ |
6 |
2 |
5 |
|
1NT |
6 |
2 |
6 |
|
2♦ |
5 |
1 |
16 |
|
5♣ |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
3♥ |
5 |
0 |
3 |
|
Pass |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
4♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 7.28
This one is another nightmare to mark, with the panel supporting eight different actions, and competitors adding a couple more options to the mix. It is certainly unusual to see a hand on which there are votes for bidding at four levels in two different suits (including the 4♣ that attracted a few competition entrants). Let’s start with those who raise partner’s suit, in ascending order…
JOEY SILVER: 2♦. For now, I will limit my hand by supporting my ox but, from here on, bidding lots of clubs is in my future. (If there is a future, which of course I am counting on.)
It sounds like Joey has assumed 2♦ is not an inverted raise, but an old-fashioned weak hand with some diamond support. Not a totally unreasonable description, but not enough say…
ALAN MOULD: 3♦. This just seems the most sensible action. Second choice, an inverted 3♣, but it is very bent!
LARRY COHEN: 3♦. I'd love to know what various club bids mean, and it’s likely I would choose one of them. I am not willing to bid 4♦ for fear of the dreaded 4-4-3-2 opposite.
CATHY BALDYSZ/P.-O. SUNDELIN: 3♦.
LIZ McGOWAN: 3♦. It would be nice if 3♣ was fit-showing, but I cannot make up system in mid-hand. Either partner is very strong, or North is about to bid Majors, or both.
Erdem has a plan for most eventualities.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: 3♦. I don't want to skip past 3NT opposite 18-19 balanced with points in hearts. If the auction continues –(3♥)-Pass-(4♥)-? back to me, I will gamble with 5♣.
Some are willing to give up on 3NT with this extreme shape…
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 4♦. It would be nice if I had a club/diamond fit bid available, but I don’t, so I’ll try to shut out the majors.
SIMON DE WIJS: 4♦. Let's roll the dice.
And, going the whole hog…
ANDREW ROBSON: 5♦. To avoid the last guess.
SALLY BROCK: 5♦. I kept coming back to this one, but I still can’t really think of anything sensible! Let’s put the whole table under pressure on the basis that there are two of them and only one of partner.
The other half of the panel prefer to start by bidding their own suit.
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 3♣. Hopefully, my showing an invitational hand will effectively pre-empt the opponents.
ZIA MAHMOOD: 3♣. If a jump to 3♣ is invitational, that’s what I would do. If that is not an option, I would try 5♣. This is not a hand on which to let the opponents in cheaply.
Most of this group are not intending to sit for 3NT if that is partner’s next move.
MARTY BERGEN: 3♣. Most play this as natural and invitational. If partner bids 3NT, I will not pass.
JILL MEYERS: 3♣. Hmmm, it seems likely that partner is 4-4 in the Majors. I will start with an invitational 3♣. If partner bids 3NT I will continue with 4♦.
WENFEI WANG: 3♣. If partner bid 3NT, I will continue with 4♦.
ANDY HUNG: 3♣. If this is invitational. It's a slight overbid with this club suit, lacking both ace and king, but I want to show my suit before North bids some number of hearts or shows both majors. If they surprise me by passing and partner bids 3NT? Then I might just pull it to 5♣.
Whilst some tell us how they plan on dealing with the opponents refusing to be shut out.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: 3♣. If the auction continues (3♥)-Pass-(4♥), I will be able to bid 4NT to show diamond support and get partner to choose a minor.
DAVID BIRD: 3♣. Bidding clubs first seems hugely better than any diamond raise, since I can show my shape with a subsequent 4NT bid if the opponents get into the auction.
JESSICA LARSSON: 3♣. Anything can be right here. I will try 3♣, which I assume is natural and invitational playing 2/1. Maybe that will keep opponents out if it is their board. However, it may not be at all, and this will be a disastrous decision. 2♣ is the alternative option, I think, but that seems a bit too much on these cards.
A few are willing to force to game…
BARNET SHENKIN: 2♣. Let’s bring clubs into play before we are forced to a high-level decision.
CHRISTIAN MARI: 2♣.
Paul makes an accurate prediction.
PAUL MARSTON: 2♣. A tough problem. I would love to bid 5♣ or 5♦, but either choice could be silly. So, I quietly explore our best strain and give them a free run at the same time. I asked six talented troopers what they would bid, and they all had a different answer. I expect a similar wide range from this illustrious panel.
Here too, we’ve got support for five-level action.
HANOI RONDON: 5♣. Maybe 3♣ is enough, but I remember being told that a seven-card-suit is trump. Any diamond values partner has will be useful in a club contract, but there is no certainly that my clubs will be of any use playing in diamonds.
Whilst, at the other end of the scale…
MATS NILSLAND: 1NT. I am not familiar with the system, but surely 1NT will not be the end of the auction. I want to listen what the others have to say.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1NT. This is not what we would bid in our system (we would have a choice between 3♣, showing 8-10 with a diamond fit and 2♠, invitational with clubs). However, there is no need to commit ourselves yet, as the auction is just starting. Let’s wait and see.
What an interesting problem, despite the very straightforward nature of the auction. At the table, partner had a weak notrump with lots of defence in the majors: AJxx/AQJ/Q9xx/9x. Your best spot is a club partscore, making ten tricks. You would also probably make a diamond partscore, but the play in the 4-4 fit could become tricky. This looks likes a win for the 3♣ bidders (with 3♦ a close second).
|
ACTION |
MARKS |
PANEL |
Competitors' |
|
1♦ |
10 |
10 |
31 |
|
Pass |
8 |
8 |
12 |
|
1♠ |
6 |
4 |
13 |
|
1NT |
6 |
4 |
15 |
|
Dbl |
2 |
0 |
27 |
|
2♣ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
2♦ |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Competition Entrant Average Score: 6.28
We finish with another hand on which there are limited options. However, our experts were widely split, with four choices each receiving support from a number of panelists. Alas, for more than a quarter of competitors, the second-largest group, the panel offered no support at all for the fifth potential choice. Let’s start with the bidders…
MARTY BERGEN: 1♦. When in doubt, make the cheapest reasonable call.
HANOI RONDON: 1♦. With so many options, I'll take the one that allows most space for finding the best denomination.
SALLY BROCK: 1♦. I like to get in early if I can. Hopefully, I will get the chance to show spades later.
ANDREW ROBSON: 1♦. Lots of room to get the spades in.
MIGRY zur CAMPANILE: 1♦. I’m excited to bid 1♦. I get the lead I want against hearts, and I’m well placed to introduce spades later if the opponents don’t do so first.
A couple chose 1♦ in preference to a 1NT overcall.
WENFEI WANG: 1♦. I don’t like to overcall 1NT with 4441 shape.
ANDY HUNG: 1♦. It is not my style to bid 1NT on this hand type, so I'll start with 1♦. The downside is that I might not get to show my strength, but at least we can still find the spades in many auctions. Overcalling 1♠ might work but, if partner has three-card spade support, we may never be able to backtrack into no-trumps.
For Pierre and Joanna, 1♠ was the alternative.
PIERRE SCHMIDT & JOANNA ZOCHOWSKA: 1♦. We will have a chance to show later our good hand with four spades. 1♠ would be our second choice.
Both David and Joey mentioned the fifth option…
DAVID BIRD: 1♦. To pass on this hand is rather like buying a lottery ticket. You have no idea what twists the auction will take, before it returns to you. 1NT and Double have obvious flaws, so I am very happy with my choice.
Joey explains why no one on the expert panel thought it was the way to go…
JOEY SILVER: 1♦. Despite my good hand, a takeout double is out, holding a singleton in one of the majors when I cannot control the subsequent auction. (After all, I ain't Italian.) 1NT is also out for the same reason and, since I don't have the stomach to pass, I will enter the fray by bidding my chunky four-card diamond suit, leaving partner lots of room to do something intelligent.
Overcalling in our four-card major also has its supporters…
BARNET SHENKIN: 1♠. This seems to have the most to gain if it’s right.
JESSICA LARSSON: 1♠. Those green ones keep getting stuck in my bidding box...
Both Larry and Paul considered 1NT the alternative…
LARRY COHEN: 1♠. I am generally not a fan of four-card overcalls, but here, since double is out, I prefer this to 1NT with the small singleton.
PAUL MARSTON: 1♠. Not 1NT for this earnest battler.
…But that action does have its advocates.
P.-O. SUNDELIN: 1NT. Not proudly.
SOPHIA BALDYSZ: 1NT. I’m hoping for a transfer to spades 😊
LIZ McGOWAN: 1NT. I do like a 1♠ overcall on a good 4-card suit, but how will I then be able to get my strength over later? Maybe partner will not transfer into hearts this time…
ALAN MOULD: 1NT. For me, it’s 1NT or Pass. This has worked well for me over the years, so I will just continue with it. I don't like 1♠ with this many points and only four of them.
Which brings us nicely on to…
MATS NILSLAND: Pass. I don't like the alternatives.
ERDEM ŐZTŰRK: Pass. I am not a fan of overcalls in four-card suits, nor of 1NT with an unbalanced hand. My only fear is that we are vulnerable against non-vul, and it might go ‘All Pass’ when we have game.
An accurate prediction from Erdem, although most are more optimistic…
JILL MEYERS: Pass. Hopefully, I’ll be able to come in later.
CHRISTIAN MARI: Pass. I should have a second chance...
SIMON DE WIJS: Pass. I hate doing this, but it feels like the best way of showing my hand later.
MIGUEL VILLAS-BOAS: Pass. I prefer to bid on the next round if possible.
CATHY BALDYSZ: Pass.
We finish with another prediction that misses the target.
ZIA MAHMOOD: Pass. I predict a popular plurality.
It was at least the second most popular choice, Z.
Partner had Ax/QJ10x/xxxx/J10x, so 3NT was a fine spot to reach. Most positive actions are likely to get you there. Will partner re-open with that junk if the auction goes 1♣-Pass-Pass-… to him? My guess is that you will collect three or four 50s defending 1♣ and lose 10 IMPs.
What a demanding set this proved to be, with less than half of panelists scoring in the 70s, and half of those only just. I suspect that high scores may be hard to come by for competition entrants too this month.
This month’s podium emphasizes the international nature of this competition, with experts from four different continents. Young Australian star Andy Hung leads the way with a fantastic perfect 80/80. David Bird (77/80), Zia Mahmood and Wenfei Wang (both 74/80), fill the remaining top spots.
Thanks, as always, to our panelists, for the time you take to contribute to this feature. See you all next month. Marc
|
Andy HUNG |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♦ |
80 |
|
David BIRD |
3♣ |
5♥ |
3♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♦ |
77 |
|
Zia MAHMOOD |
2NT |
4♠ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♣ |
Pass |
74 |
|
Wenfei WANG |
2NT |
4♠ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♦ |
74 |
|
Andrew ROBSON |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
6♦ |
Pass |
4♠ |
5♦ |
1♦ |
72 |
|
Miguel VILLAS-BOAS |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♣ |
4♥ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3♣ |
Pass |
72 |
|
Migry zur CAMPANILE |
3♣ |
5♥ |
5NT |
4♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♦ |
71 |
|
Simon DE WIJS |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
6♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
4♦ |
Pass |
71 |
|
Larry COHEN |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
4♥ |
4♥ |
4♥ |
3♦ |
1♠ |
70 |
|
Jessica LARSSON |
2NT |
5NT |
3♦ |
4♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♠ |
70 |
|
Hanoi RONDON |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
6NT |
Pass |
4♠ |
5♣ |
1♦ |
70 |
|
Joey SILVER |
3♣ |
5♣ |
3♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
2♦ |
1♦ |
70 |
|
Marty BERGEN |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♥ |
6NT |
Pass |
Pass |
3♣ |
1♦ |
69 |
|
Paul MARSTON |
2NT |
5♣ |
4♦ |
6♦ |
Pass |
4♠ |
2♣ |
1♠ |
67 |
|
Alan MOULD |
3♣ |
5♣ |
3♥ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♦ |
1NT |
67 |
|
Edrem ŐZTŰRK |
4♥ |
5♣ |
4♦ |
4♦ |
3NT |
4♥ |
3♦ |
Pass |
67 |
|
Jill MEYERS |
3♠ |
4♠ |
4♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♠ |
3♣ |
Pass |
66 |
|
Christian MARI |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♣ |
4♥ |
4♣ |
4♥ |
2♣ |
Pass |
65 |
|
Mats NILSLAND |
3♥ |
5♥ |
3♦ |
4♦ |
3NT |
4♠ |
1NT |
Pass |
65 |
|
Pierre SCHMIDT & Joanna ZOCHOWSKA |
3♥ |
5♥ |
4♣ |
6♦ |
Pass |
4♠ |
1NT |
1♦ |
65 |
|
Sally BROCK |
3NT |
5♣ |
4♦ |
6♦ |
3NT |
4♠ |
5♦ |
1♦ |
64 |
|
Barnet SHENKIN |
2NT |
4♠ |
3♦ |
4♥ |
4♣ |
4♠ |
2♣ |
1♠ |
61 |
|
Cathy BALDYSZ |
3♣ |
5♥ |
4♠ |
4♣ |
Pass |
5♦ |
3♦ |
Pass |
60 |
|
Sophia BALDYSZ |
3NT |
5♥ |
4♥ |
4♥ |
4♥ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
1NT |
60 |
|
P.-O. SUNDELIN |
3NT |
5♥ |
4♥ |
6♦ |
4♥ |
4♠ |
3♦ |
1NT |
59 |
|
Liz McGOWAN |
3♥ |
5♣ |
4♣ |
6♦ |
4♥ |
4♦ |
3♦ |
1NT |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP SCORE |
2NT |
5♥ |
4♦ |
4♦ |
Pass |
4♥ |
3♣ |
1♦ |
|
|
HAND 1: |
2NT 10 |
3♣ 8 |
3♥/3NT 6 |
4♥ 4 |
3♠ 2 |
|
|
|
HAND 2: |
5♥ 10 |
4♠/5♣ 8 |
5NT/6♥ 7 |
6♦ 6 |
4NT 5 |
4♥ 3 |
5♦ 2 |
|
HAND 3: |
4♦ 10 |
3♦ 9 |
4♣/5♣ 7 |
3♥/4♥ 6 |
5NT/3♠ 5 |
4♠ 4 |
|
|
HAND 4: |
4♦ 10 |
4♥ 9 |
6♦ 8 |
6NT 7 |
4♣ 5 |
4NT/5♣ 4 |
Pass/5♦ 2 |
|
HAND 5: |
Pass 10 |
3NT 8 |
4♥ 6 |
3♥/4♣ 4 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 6: |
4♥ 10 |
4♠ 8 |
Pass/5♦ 6 |
4♦ 4 |
3♠ 3 |
|
|
|
HAND 7: |
3♣ 10 |
3♦ 9 |
2♣/4♦ 7 |
1NT/5♦ 6 |
2♦/3♥/5♣ 5 |
|
|
|
HAND 8: |
1♦ 10 |
Pass 8 |
1♠/1NT 6 |
Dbl 2 |
|
|
|
|
HAND 1: |
3.32 |
|
HAND 2: |
5.82 |
|
HAND 3: |
5.90 |
|
HAND 4: |
6.82 |
|
HAND 5: |
6.82 |
|
HAND 6: |
5.38 |
|
HAND 7: |
7.28 |
|
HAND 8: |
6.28 |
