This article was provided with permission from Marc Smith
BID WITH THE EXPERTS How the experts voted: 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 Total Larry COHEN (USA) 4H 4NT 2NT Agree 1C 2H Pass 4C 5D 76 Victor SILVERSTONE (Scotland) 4H 4NT 2NT Prefer 2C 2H Pass Pass 3H 74 Sally BROCK (England) 4H 4NT 2NT Agree 1C 2H Pass Pass 3NT 73 David BIRD (England) 4H 4NT 1S Prefer 2C 2H Pass Pass 5D 72 Marty BERGEN (USA) 4H 4NT 2NT Prefer 2C 4S Pass 4D 3H 70 Danny KLEINMAN (USA) 4H 5S 2S Prefer 2C 2H 4C 4D 6D 69 Ron KLINGER (Australia) 4H 5S 2NT Prefer 2C 2H Pass Pass 4NT 67 Karen McCALLUM (USA) 3H 4NT 2S Agree 1C 3H Pass 4D 5D 66 Krzysztof JASSEM (Poland) 4H 4NT 2NT Prefer 2C 5S Pass 4D Dbl 66 Sabine AUKEN (Germany) 4H 5S 2NT Prefer 2C 5S 4D 4C 4C 63 Marshall MILES (USA) 3H 4NT 2S Prefer 2C 2H 4NT 4D 6D 63 Tim BOURKE (Australia) 4H 5S 2S Prefer 2C 2H Pass Pass 5C 63 Prakash PARANJAPE (India) 3H 5S 1S Agree 1C 2H Pass Pass 5D 62 Sharyn REUS (Canada) 4H Pass 2NT Agree 1C 2S Pass Pass 5D 60 Julian POTTAGE (England) 2H 4NT 2S Prefer 2C 2H 4D 4D 3S 59 Eddie KANTAR (USA) 4H 5S 3C Prefer 2C 2H 4D 4C 3H 59 Steve ROBINSON (USA) 3H 4NT 4D Prefer 2C 4S Pass 4D 3NT 58 Drew CANNELL (Canada) 3H 4NT 1S Agree 1C 2S Pass 4C 5D 57 Andrew ROBSON (England) 3S 5S 2NT Agree 1C 2H 4C Pass 3NT 55 Jarek WYGANOWSKI (Poland) ** 4H 5S 2S Agree 1C 2S 4C 4C 4NT 52 Irving GORDON (Scotland) 2D 4NT 4C Agree 1C 2H 5C 4D 3H 49 ** Guest Panelist Welcome back to BFI's "Bid with the Experts." We will be returning to a regular schedule in the New Year. As a taster, here are the answers and the panel?s comments for one of the two sets posed before our lengthy absence. Our guest panelist this month is previous competition winner Jarek Wyganowski from Poland. Jarek learned to play bridge while at high school in 1986. After graduating from college in 1994, he gave up the game for some five years in order to focus on his professional career, but he has recently started playing again. We welcome him back! Congratulations to Larry Cohen, who leads the panel this month with 76/80. Other panelists who scored commendably well on a tough set were Victor Silverstone (74), Sally Brock (73) and David Bird (72). 1. Neither Vul. Dealer East. IMPs --- A Q J 9 8 6 5 4 10 4 3 9 6 West North East South --- --- 1S 1NT ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 4H 10 13 58 3H 5 5 14 2H 3 1 19 2NT 3 0 1 3S 0 1 7 2D 0 1 0 Double 0 0 5 4C 0 0 1 The main question here is surely how high we bid in our good 8-card suit. Let?s start with the majority? Kantar: 4H. What's the catch? Jassem: 4H. Nice agreement: In competitive action 4H is depraved any conventional meaning. Cohen: 4H. Maybe too much, but how will partner ever know to raise if I merely invite? Besides, this may be a save against 4m. Two of our female panelists offer some practical advice? Auken: 4H. This may turn out to be a silly contract, but as I don't know how to find out I simply bid what strangely always comes to my mind when I pick up 8 hearts to the AQJ. Reus: 4H. As they say in Montreal "bon, pas bon". Sure I might be able to get a huge number by doubling but who will play 1nt dbl? Sure I might even have a slam.... On the other hand I may not even have a game. So, come what may, I close my eyes and bid what I HOPE I can make. Ron raises a question that regular partnerships need to address… Klinger: 4H (unless this could be taken as a splinter, in which case 3H). While David offers an alternative structure by suggesting that it should be 3H that is conventional - are you sure how your regular partner would treat various heart bids after a 1NT overcall? Bird: 4H. Since 2H is non-forcing and 3H fit-showing, I guess 4H must be natural and not a splinter bid. There has to be SOME way of playing in 4H! As for choosing a level, I can see no reason at all to contemplate either a part score or a slam. While Jarek suggests yet another alternative… Wyganowski: 4H: it might be an overbid, but 3H would be preemptive so I cannot sensibly invite a game. Would love an idea of playing transfers in that sequence. Danny is worried about the opponents’ contract but wants to help them get there… Kleinman: 4H. Offensive bids for offensively-oriented hands. Could be down three, but there's no good way to probe delicately and stop in a safe partial when 4H can't make without letting the opponents show their suits and perhaps reach an unbeatable 6D from the South side. Anyone for 4-level transfers in this auction? I'd love to have one available here. Really? That’s so that LHO North can double to show diamonds, is it? Bourke: 4H. I can think of no other bid - unless partner might mistakenly takes this as a singleton. With a game forcing raise, I would either double 1NT or make a game-forcing bid of 2NT. Victor sums up the view of the majority… Silverstone: 4H. The worst sight in bridge is to make an obvious natural bid and to see partner producing the dreaded alert card. NO, Partner, 4H is not a splinter. In 2001, 42 of my penalty doubles have produced blue cards. Does it only happen to me? There was a significant minority for 3H, though, so let’s see what they have to say… Cannell: 3H A 2H bid would be non-forcing - 3H holds great length (I have that). Not willing to go all the way to 4H - why give the opps a free shot at 300/500? McCallum: 3H. To discourage competition. The chances for 4H are pretty slim - its not really worth trying but I do want to buy the hand. I don't know that we can beat 4-of-a-minor so don't want to give LHO an easy chance to bid 3m. Marshall mentions the other sensible alternative… Miles: 3H (invitational). If I wanted to force I would cue bid 2NT. I wish more panelists had addressed the meaning of 2NT - does it agree spades or does it show any game-forcing one/two-suited hand? Paranjape: 3H, Hopefully, invitational......... Robinson: 3H. Maybe partner can raise if it’s right. Only one panelist did not even want to invite… Pottage: 2H. The void in partner's suit and the fact that minor suit honours figure to lie offside suggest caution. I shall rebid 3H if I get the chance. I would guess that Andrew misread the bidding… Robson: 3S, expecting 3NT, then 4H. Should be a self-agreeing splinter. So, too, has Irving… Gordon: 2D.Transfer, & 3S over the expected 2H.Then only 4H over 4C or 4D -- you`ve done enough. This hand could make from 9 to 13 tricks, depending on partner`s Spade holding. Pard may move on over my 4H with both minors controlled, & a really good hand in which case, I`ll give him 6-6. He seems to be under the impression that his partner is the 1NT overcaller (rather than the spade opener), although his comments about the spade holding are equally relevant. 2. Both Vul. Dealer North. IMPs --- K 10 7 2 10 9 6 2 A Q J 7 4 West North East South --- 4S Dbl Pass ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 4NT 10 12 23 5S 7 8 26 5NT 5 0 1 Pass 4 1 23 6C 3 0 1 5C 2 0 16 5H 1 0 6 7H 0 0 1 Redouble 0 0 1 The panel was essentially split between two main camps - 4NT and 5S. Although a quarter of our readers chose to defend, they were supported by only one panelist and Sharyn thinks the system defined partner’s double… Reus: Pass. I believe you have imposed a system where X = penalty (a system I am not used to) but I obey. Danny disagrees… Kleinman: 5S. Though Bridge Forum Standard is silent about the meaning of partner's double, a modern expert partner will have a good hand, not two or three spade tricks. On that assumption, I'll bid 5S to ask partner to pick a slam; if he puts the ball back in my court with 5NT, I'll bid 6C. But a number of panelists mentioned that they considered pass a sensible option… Gordon: 4NT. I don’t like this shape and pass is tempting (I bet no one will pass)… Your bidding is better than you predicting, Irving, although you were close. Gordon (continued) …but you have to bid to avoid a possible double game swing and you might have a slam. I play a double of 4S as a strong-NT type, with 4NT over 4S as a 2 or 3-suiter. Silverstone: 4NT Am I playing with another ‘wrinklie’ against a young swinger? Am I allowed to make ageist comments? (Of course. MS) The system notes say that Double of a 3-level preempt is for take-out. Does this mean that a double of a 4-level pre-empt is penalty? If so am I doing it to him for a change? Some were less sure but still went for the slam bonus… Kantar: 5S. I'm going for broke. If partner plays this as a penalty double, I will be broke! While Ron tries to keep all balls in play… Klinger: 5S if the double is for takeout (my preference), 4NT is the double just shows values and Pass if X = penalties. We were hoping the panel would tell us what the double means (should mean)… and most of them seem to be on similar wavelengths… Wyganowski: 5S: It is all gambling at this level. I’ll better play a slam in a right suit then a game in a wrong suit. Pass might be right choice if slam goes down, but with those cards bidding is a winner in a long run. If I am lucky partner has something like: KJxx AQJx A Kxxx Bourke: 5S. Slam seems probable in any of the three denominations. Andrew makes a point that will interest system buffs… Robson: 5S. Pick a slam with a spade control and grand slam interest. 5NT pick a slam with either no spade control or no grand slam interest. While Sabine has an alternative interpretation - another one to ask your favorite ox about. Auken: 5S. The hand is too good to simply take out to the 5-level. 5S gets hearts into the picture, 5NT would focus on the minors. It would be handy here to play a Lebensohl-type 4NT, where direct 5-level bids are forward going. Not too many people play that way, I guess. 40% of the panel drove to slam immediately, and Prakash suggests why their choice is better than that of the majority… Paranjape: 5S. This hand is too strong for a direct suit bid at the 5-level. One could also try 4NT and then 5S, however, that way, we are likely to lose the Heart suit completely. So, what do the rest have to say for themselves… Brock: 4NT. Asking partner to choose a suit. Pottage: 4NT. Partner has not shown spades. Let's hope we can find a sensible place to play. Cohen: 4NT. I play such doubles as "cards." I sit with balanced hands and pull with shape. Would never sit with a void, so I ask partner to choose a suit (he will presume I have 2 suits and choose his cheapest playable suit). I won't drive to 6 - maybe he has a marginal double (and suits won't split well). Both David and Krzysztof make the significant point that ‘bidding shows values by definition’… Bird: 4NT. Not enough to bid 5S, as I see it. Any diamond finesse is likely to lose and the breaks may be bad. I would pass with a bust, so 4NT shows some values. Jassem: 4NT. Not intending to raise partner to six. Partner knows that being broke I would have passed. Miles: 4NT. Partner may think I have the minors but if he bids 5D I will correct to hearts. I strongly suspect that we have a slam, but unless partner jumps to slam or cue bids, I'll pass since I don't know how to invite without committing us to slam. Steve doesn’t tell us what he is going to do next (which is fair, as we didn’t ask). Robinson: 4NT. Get partner to bid his longest suit. Double should be T/O Drew does, though, and you may think that his valuation of the hand is somewhat at odds with some of the panelists above… Cannell: 4NT. For the moment, this shows the ability to play in any of two suits. Fortunately, I have them all covered. When partner chooses a suit - I will be very comfortable offering the grand slam with a 5S advance. An immediate 5S is wrong as we first must find the strain, then offer the grand. For me, Kate sums up the problem… McCallum: 4NT. Takeout. Double of 4S should be primarily penalty and it's normal to pass, thus removing the double suggests that I really do expect to make what I'm bidding. Partner should expect me to be this good - to bid beyond the five-level on my own would be foolhardy. If we have a slam I'd expect him to bid it. Prefer 4NT to 5C or 6C because it suggests two suits. Frequently, the double will be 4441 or 5431 (with a singleton other than spades) - we surely have a playable trump suit and I want to be sure that we find it. For the record, partner held Kxxx/QJx/AK/Kxxx and hearts were 5-1, so 5C was all you could make and 4S-X was two down. 3. Both Vul. Dealer East. IMPs Q J 10 8 4 A Q J 9 6 4 A 5 West North East South --- --- 1H Pass ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 2NT 10 9 14 2S 8 6 18 1S 5 3 32 4C 2 1 0 4D 2 1 26 3C 1 1 0 4NT 1 0 8 3H 0 0 1 I put this hand to see how consistent the panel are. Some months ago, I posed a problem on this hand after the auction had started 1H-1S, and a significant number of panelists made comments such as “why didn’t we start with the obvious 2S bid?” So… Kleinman: 2S. Flash the slam sign early. It's tempting to take control of the auction with a Jacoby 2NT, hoping for a singleton-showing 3S reply from partner, but what if partner bids a "Fast Arrival" 4H (part of Jacoby 2NT) instead? Even 5H won't be safe facing the "horror hand" (S xx H K109xx D KQx C KQx). However, 2S will do the job facing that hand: 1H-2S; 2NT-3H; 3NT, and I won't be bidding beyond 4H. McCallum: 2S. Planning to raise hearts on the next round and follow with RKC. It would be nice to be able to follow with a splinter in support of hearts, but don't think that's available in the system. (I think it is. MS) Best would be if partner raises spades - but it's important in any case to get the SK into the RKC auction since the degree of spade fit is quite likely to be the key to 6H or 7H. Don't like 4D at all - how is partner to know the difference between AK/Kxxxx/Kxx/xxx and xx/Kxxxx/Axx/KQJ Bourke: 2S Then some number of hearts. I want partner to focus on the spade honors. Miles: 2S. Soloway jump shifts (altho he may have abandoned them). Partner should make the cheapest bid (artificial relay) unless he has an unusual hand, and over 2NT I will bid 3D, showing shortage in diamonds and at least 4 card heart support. Whether partner knows what I am doing or not, he will realize that spade honors are valuable. Wyganowski: 2S: I am going to find out more about partner’s hand.4D as an alternative bid puts too much pressure on the partner and he might go wrong. Methink that Julian has been at the Christmas spirit early… Pottage: 2S. I know one player who says that you must have 3 of the top 6 honours between your suit and partner's in order to make a jump shift. However he is not on the panel, so I am with Victor Silverstone here in predicting unanimity. You have got to be joking!!! You weren’t even with the majority, let alone part of a unanimous panel. Indeed, they came up with six different choices! There was some support for the original simple response… Bird: 1S. I don't see any reason why a jump-shift should prove useful. Nor do I like making a jump shift on a queen-high suit. Cannell: 1S. We can force later in the auction. No need to show any type of forcing heart raise at this juncture. I want to find out partner's reaction to 1S at the lowest possible level. Paranjape: 1S. No fast method seems satisfactory. A direct 4Nt would get us into trouble if partner held three small spades. A 4D splinter would be satisfactory if partner is in a position to make a constructive bid after that. If partner signs off after a 4D splinter, whether to pass that or try once more will still be a problem (partner could have AK of spades, KH and one or two wasted diamond honors). That is why 1S seems to me to be the best beginning. Steve was happy to show his singleton… Robinson: 4D. Partner needs black honors for slam And Irving preferred to splinter in his longer minor to prohibit the lead… Gordon: 4C. Impossible (great!) problem. Another 9 to 13 tricker. But I’m going to risk the 5 level. 4C is a better splinter than 4D -- the last thing we want is a Club lead. Over 4D, I bid 5H (2+Spade losers). Over 4H -- which could be good news if pard. hasn`t a Diamond control, I bid 5D, denying a Spade control-if pard. bids 5H, I hope we make it. I would rather respond 3 Clubs than 1S or 2S on this hand. This is a clear case where you must take control. And then there was a curious entry from EBK… Kantar: 3C. The force of control from my old Norman Squire days. I intend to follow this up with a diamond bid showing my singleton with primary hearts, a la Soloway. I am sure you know what you are talking about, Eddie, but you’ve lost me. Guess I’m not old enough to remember when people bid this way J The majority, though, opted to show their heart support immediately with a Jacoby bid… Robson: 2NT. Jacoby. Will take control. Klinger: 2NT. A splinter will take the auction too high too quickly. 2NT sets the suit and will allow cue-bidding to locate the spade control. 4D will be OK for 6H but 2NT is the better chance to find 7H. Brock: 2NT. I assume this is some sort of forcing raise. The hand is too good for a splinter in my view. And I don't believe in bidding side suits with such primary support for partner. Auken: 2NT. Far too strong for a splinter. Splinters should be very closely defined, as they take up so much bidding space. Especially a sequence as 1H-4D, which doesn't give partner any room to manoeuvre at all. Reus: 2NT. I feel that I will get the most information out of partner with this game forcing raise. Would it not be nice to hear that he has a singleton spade? If not, later cues will be helpful as well. Silverstone: 2NT. No doubt someone will explain why this is not automatic. I will let you have Julian’s email address, Victor. Cohen: 2NT. Too good for a splinter. I presume this is Jacoby -- this gives us a better chance of keeping the opponents out than a 1S response would. Krzysztof sums up the view of the plurality… Jassem: 2NT!!! My favourite type of problem. Don't bid a side suit with support when you want partner to be short in that suit! We would be happy to have partner short in spades so we should not bid spades. We should not bid 4D either. We are too strong for that (partner has: x/Kxxxx/AKx/xxxx). All we need to know is whether partner has a control in spades and perhaps check aces. Start slowly, you will learn. 4. Neither Vul. Dealer West. IMPs A K Q 4 3 --- A 4 A K J 8 6 5 West North East South 1C 1H Pass Pass ? Do you agree with 1C. If not, what do you prefer? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) Prefer 2C 10 11 64 Agree 1C 8 9 30 Prefer 1S 0 0 6 I was virtually certain which camp David would be in as he was sitting opposite when I held this hand and, afterwards, he was not complimentary about my bidding… Bird: Prefer 2C. Since you can make a grand slam opposite a suitable Yarborough, I prefer 2C. I do not agree with the argument that 'if you survive the first round, you will be well placed'. How can partner imagine you have little more than one loser in your hand? Some felt very strongly on the subject… Miles: Prefer 2C. I violently disagree with 1C. Silverstone: NO NO NO NO - Prefer 2C by miles. There are some 2-suiters with few losers where I risk playing at the 1 level BUT NOT THIS ONE. - not only just 2 losers but lots of high cards. Jassem: Prefer 2C. Of course. I would not have been surprised if 1C had been passed out. Some just preferred not to score an undignified +190… Kantar: Prefer 2C. Now that someone has bid, though, I agree, ha ha. I confess that I would have opened 2C. Bourke: Prefer 2C. I understand why 1C was opened but think it better to start with 2C because it would be silly to play in 1C with a slam cold. Kleinman: Prefer 2C. But in a way I admire the West who bid 1C, for he obviously appreciates the hazards of the Omnibus 2C, especially on 2-suiters. However, with 5 Honor Tricks and about 11 playing tricks, I'm willing to endure those hazards and would open 2C. Auken: Prefer 2C. I am a big advocate of opening on the 1-level with strong hands and more than 1 suit to bid, but this is taking it too far even for my taste. Pottage: Prefer 2C. It must be Christmas as we have another very easy 10 marks. Whether you count losers, quick tricks or playing tricks this hand qualifies for the strongest possible opening. How are you ever going to convince partner that you are this good if you fail to do so? You would have been closer predicting a unanimous panel this time, Julian - it was 55%. So, what do the other 45% have to say? Robson: Agree with 1C. The auction will go badly if start with 2C. Cannell: Agree with 1C. It is easier to describe the hand-type with a natural beginning. 2C takes up too much space, and crowds the two-suiter for the later auction. Brock: Agree with 1C. I'm happy with the 1C opening. Personally, I never find it easy to bid hands after a 2C opening so try to avoid it wherever possible. Paranjape: Agree with 1C. Much easier to explore after 1C (than after a 2C opening). Much better chance that it will be kept open (than say a 1S opening bid) Gordon: Agree 1C. It’s unlikely to be passed in these days of dynamic overcalls. If you open 2C, you might be looking at a 4H or 5D bid when it’s your turn next. But it’s close between 1C & 2C. b) What do you bid now? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 2H 10 12 23 5S 6 2 3 3H 5 1 1 4H 4 0 1 4S 3 2 16 2S 2 3 36 3S 1 0 5 2C 0 0 4 Double 0 0 3 1S 0 0 3 4NT 0 0 1 3C 0 0 1 Amazingly, between the panel and the readers a total of 12 different actions were suggested as a solution to this problem - surely a record. Remarkably, perhaps, one of those 12 attracted a majority of the panel… Robson: 2H. Show a game-forcing hand then jump in spades. Kleinman: 2H. I'm too strong merely to jump to 4S; I must try to catch up after underbidding initially. Kantar: 2H to set up a forcing auction. Pottage: 2H. 4S would not do justice to the hand, so I start with a cue bid, planning to introduce spades later. Of course I, and I imagine most of the rest of the panel, would never face this problem at the table! That depends, it would seem, on your definition of ‘most’ Methinks you expected more than 55% support for 2C on the first round J Miles: 2H. 2S is not enough. Partner might pass. Even if he doesn't, I doubt that I can ever catch up after failing to open 2C (which I know lots of people dread doing with a 2-suiter). When I don't open 2C, can partner visualize a grand slam with xxxx/xxx/xxx/Qxx? Paranjape: 2H. Will force unconditionally first, and then bid Spades. Whether 2S would be a forcing bid or not, there could be some doubt. Klinger: 2H. Too good for 4S at once. Gordon: 2H. And 3D over 3C from pard - you don’t want a diamond lead. If pard bids 4/5D, 6C will shut him up. This is a 6 or 7 hand given a modicum of fit. If necessary, I will risk 5S at some point. 3H in this pass out (or any other) position I play as asking pard to bid 3NT with a H stop. Brock: 2H. And then will bid 4S unless I get some sort of positive sign of enthusiasm from partner. Nothing other than 2H gets anywhere near describing the power of this hand. Silverstone: 2H. Did I open 1C so that I could defend 1H-Doubled? Sorry but still not buying. Will start the impossible task of catching up. I should really abstain but will stick to THE RULE. (madman bid 1C and I have taken over in a damage limitation role) Cohen: 2H. Can't double and risk a pass. No reason to jump to 4S yet - I am way too strong. I'm going to torture partner. Hmmm… this is obviously the bid I should have made at the table! Bourke: 2H. 4S Seems fair bid but 2H allows you to punt a (grand?) slam should East bid 2S! I will let the real life victim of the hand sum up the case for the majority… Bird: 2H. A double may be left in for 500/300 when you have an easy slam available. I intend my 2H by way of an apology for the 1C opening bid. If partner responds in spades I can punt 7S. If he bids 3D instead, I will be nervous of bidding just 4S on the next round. That's the trouble with opening at the one-level when you can very nearly guarantee a slam on your own hand. If partner has a 4-card fit somewhere and the king of diamonds (as I did at the table, partnering Marc), how can he visualize a grand slam? So. Let’s hear from the remaining 40% of the panel… Cannell: 2S. Denotes a real jump shift - and, in my opinion, is a one-round force. And, in partner’s opinion? Reus: 2S. I have nothing to more to add. If pard passes, I would be very surprised. So will he be when you make an inglorious +260. Wyganowski: 2S: It is time to describe what I’ve got Some would suggest that this doesn’t!!! Bergen: 4S. Unhappy So will partner be when you make an inglorious +510. Robinson: 4S. Should show my hand That’s what I thought at the table, but I have since been persuaded otherwise. At least these efforts would have gotten you to the small slam, I think… Jassem: 5S. Not enough to force to game but enough to force to slam. Did I go mad meanwhile? Auken: 5S. Unless I do something drastic now, partner won't be able to visualize what a monster I have. As usual, Kate presents a well-reasoned case, but she doesn’t tell us why 3H is better than 2H… McCallum: 3H. Too good for 2S or 3S, both of which are non-forcing. Would like to bid 4H to guarantee the void, but that will make the rest of the auction extremely awkward. Too good for 4S also - need virtually nothing but a fit to make a slam. Partner won't be bidding over 4S with xxxx/xxxx/xxx/xx, and we may still make 7S. When you can make a grand facing the right yarborough, it's your job to maximize your chances of finding it. For the record, partner held xxxx/xxxx/Kxx/xx and the grand slam was cold. 5. E-W Game. Dealer East. IMPs 7 6 A J 10 Q 10 6 A K J 10 7 West North East South --- --- 1D Pass 2C Pass 3C Pass 3H Pass 3NT Pass ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) Pass 10 13 57 4C 7 3 19 4D 6 3 12 4NT 3 1 4 5C 2 1 3 6D 1 0 1 4H 0 0 3 Should we give up in 3NT or make one more move towards slam? Paranjape: Pass. Not strong enough for a further try. Klinger: Pass. That's why I bid 3H. McCallum: Pass. If I understand the system correctly, 3C was non-forcing. (Indeed it was. MS) So where are we going? 6C/D can't be better than a finesse even facing the perfect hand (singleton heart and AS). Wouldn’t you want to play 6C facing as little as KQx/x/KJ10xx/Qxxx? Would partner not bid exactly this way with that hand? Cannell: Pass. The 3C advance by partner does not show extra values. (If it does, too much pressure is put on our prescribed system.) Therefore, I have no problem passing 3NT. After all, our 3H bid was an effort to get partner to bid 3NT with spades stopped. If our intention was to carry on over 3NT, I think that our second call should have been 3D - not 3H. Then, the minor-suit game or slam would be in the cross-hairs. Making a similar point… Brock: Pass. I don't like 3H. The key to this hand is surely the nature of partner's diamonds. I would have bid 3D. Now I haven't a clue but assume partner has a balanced 12-14 in which case we don't seem to have enough for slam. I guess he could have a minimum 3-2-4-4 with good diamonds and bad clubs (hence the 1D opening rather than the more normal 1C on that shape), but I would think 4-1-5-3 or 3-1-5-4 (or 4-1-4-4) more likely. Jassem: Pass. I assume 3C did not show any extras. If it did, I would perhaps risk 4C (not 4D which would indicate spade shortage). Cohen: Pass. I've told most of my story. If My S7 were the D7 it would be a different ballgame. For sure. I think everyone would then bid on. Robinson: Pass. No safety if I bid further. Bourke: Pass. I have no extras and partner probably doesn't have any either so Hamman's rule applies. Silverstone: Pass. Yes I could be missing a slam (KQx/x/AKxxx/Qxxx) but we are not even safe at the 4-level. Nor will it be clear how to continue. So I will stick in advance to my 2002 New Year resolution not to speculate on perfecto slams but just take the money. (for the last 18 years I have resolved to stop smoking but I no longer need to do so - BOAST BOAST BOAST) It is time to hear from the man who held the hand at the table… Bird: Pass. There could be a slam but investigating the matter is risky. Also, we might need to play in diamonds if partner has the spade king. I suppose I could bid 4D and then 5C over 4S but I'm going to pass and hope for the best. At least he is consistent, and this time he is rewarded! Sharyn sums up the case for the majority… Reus: Pass. I know this is a rather chicken action especially since SA, DA-K, and CQ along with a 2-2-5-4 or 3-1-5-4 pattern would make a very good slam. However, 2-3-4-4 with the same high cards or even slightly worse high cards would make even the 5-level unsafe. So, if we are going to advance, how should we do so? Danny and Jarek produce identical hands to support their case, and I must say that I think their point is a valid one… Kleinman: 4C. I owe my partner a slam try. After all, Axx/x/AKxxx/Qxxx will produce 7C. Wyganowski: 4C: I don’t need much for a slam. Give partner just Axx/x/AKxxx/Qxxx and 7C is cold. Robson: 4C. Just a little too good to pass. 5C must surely be solid, but I fancy 6C facing a 3-1-5-4 shape. Sabine makes a similar comment but a different bid… Auken: 4D. One more try. If partner has a singleton heart, we shouldn't be so far from slam. Julian’s bid suggests that he is aware of the need to protect partner’s potential SK, as David suggested earlier, but he does not mention it in his comment… Pottage: 4D. This hand offers pretty fair slam potential and expressing delayed support for partner seems the best way forward. Axxx/x/KJxxx/Qxx is not my idea of an opening bid, yet it makes 6C quite good. Irving notice, but then made a bid that ignores the problem… Gordon: 5C.Safer than 3NT (partner could have Qxx in spades). 5C is not as strong as 4C (for me). In this sequence, 3H is a slam try. Come to think of it, why did I bid 3H and not 3D? 5D, or even 6D, is likely to play better than 5/6C with the spade lead coming round to pard. Eddie echoes this question… Kantar: 4D. Why didn't I bid 3D over 3C. Then I could cuebid the HA now. I am not sure why this is better than either 4C or 4D… Miles: 4NT (natural). When clubs is the agreed suit, the presumption is that 4NT is natural (especially when partner bids 3NT) since you could seldom stand the wrong response to Blackwood anyway. I agree with Marshall’s comment about 4NT. However, you can presumably signoff in 4NT later (to suggest only mild slam interest) if you bid 4C/4D and partner, say, cue-bids his heart singleton. For the record, partner held Axx/x/AKJxx/xxxx. With the CQ singleton onside, you wanted to get to a slam - there were an easy 13 tricks in clubs and 12 in diamonds or notrump. 6. Both Vul. Dealer East. IMPs --- A Q J 10 5 A Q 6 3 2 A 6 3 West North East South --- --- 1S Pass 2H Pass 2S Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 4D 10 8 34 4C 8 5 19 Pass 7 8 40 4NT 0 0 4 5NT 0 0 1 6D 0 0 1 Although both 4D and Pass individually received the blessing of an equal number of panelists, I have downgraded the inaction because a significant majority (13/21) of our experts thought it was right to bid on. Let’s start with the passers… Robson: Pass. The auction is not progressing well. Leave well alone. Bird: Pass. It is a complete guess whether you should go any higher. With a void in partner's suit and several gaps in my own hand, I will follow my tactics on the previous hand and stay low. Paranjape: Pass. I would need better Diamond pips to make a further try. Klinger: Pass. No evidence of fit makes slam speculative, especially opposite some of the light hands we like to open. Brock: Pass. Conservative again, but it doesn't sound as if the hands fit very well. Reus: Pass. This time I am quite sure of no heart fit (would bid 3H with good doubleton) so to bid again would require partner to have not only length in diamonds but also the king. Since four trumps would be unlikely from the auction, I would need fast discards for my club losers as well. Even though this would be likely, I would say that slam is not going to be the greatest proposition. But I will apologize if I am wrong and use the old "if I had any diamond spots, I would have bid again" excuse. Bourke: Pass. Partner might have a 3-card diamond suit but he is most likely to have 6223 shape. Would you like to be higher than 3NT opposite AKJxxx/xx/xx/Kxx? Silverstone: Pass. Same again. We could have slam but, after 4D, it will not be clear what to do next. Plus there is a danger that 5D is too high. What is partner supposed to do with, say, AQJxx/x/xxx/KQxx? Actually, their arguments are fairly convincing, so I have upgraded the mark from the one I originally sketched in based on the voting. Time to hear from the other majority faction… Kleinman: 4D. Partner's 3NT showed a club stopper but didn't deny 3-card diamond support. Slam is still on the horizon, and diamonds may be the best strain. If partner rebids 4NT (which is not a key-card ask in the absence of suit agreement), I will let him play there. Robinson: 4D. I am worth one more move Jassem: 4D. The last move from me. Miles: 4D. My only problem is whether to bid 4D followed by a club cue bid or whether to bid 4C now. Slam may not make if partner's strength is mostly in spades, but in some sequences I will drive to slam since it will be hard for partner to do much when missing the controls I have. Both Julian and Krzysztof tell us why they consider better than the alternative… Pottage: 4D. Again I think the hand justifies a further advance but now we face a genuine choice between 4C and 4D. 4C works better if partner happens to have 5, but otherwise it will muddy the waters. I shall show my 5-carder and see whether partner can say anything helpful. Gordon: 4D.You haven’t bid your hand yet. 4C is possible but why cloud the issue? Partner is short in hearts but could easily have Kxx in diamonds, or even four diamonds -2H might have end played him! With even four diamonds, he would not necessary raise since you could be bidding a 3- or even 2-card stopper! How strong do you have to be to bid 1S-2H anyway? Anyone know out there? Kate summarizes the case for 4D very nicely… McCallum: 4D. There's a good case for 4C, especially facing a partner who could have a weak 5/5 in the black suits (is that possible systemically?) (I think it is. Yes. MS) But there are dangers... after 4C, partner won't be able to evaluate his 3-card diamond support well; or he may get overly excited about clubs with a 5224 or 6124. Of course, it could be right to pass 3NT when partner is minimum with everything in the black suits, but I'm not up to it - not when I can make 12 or 13 tricks facing many normal hands such as Axxxxx/Kx/Kx/KTx or QTxxxx/K/Kxx/Kxx. Will respect a signoff in 4NT. And finally… Cannell: 4C. An inadequate effort to "pattern-out" for partner. Partner now has the room to bid 4D on Kxx, or the like or to bid 4H on stiff HK, etc. A 4D continuation announces the fifth diamond, but 4C should also give partner the most room to help our cause. Eddie offers a system idea for those who are gluttons for punishment… Kantar: 4C. I play the 4th suit at the four level after partner bids 3NT, no agreed suit, as a raise to 4NT with short spades; a raise to 4NT would show two spades. I can't resist my toy. Cohen: 4C. Unlike Problem 5, here I haven't told my story yet. This gets across my extras and spade shortness. I will pass 4NT and expect to make it. Partner can bid 4D over 4C, so I prefer this action, which shows at least 12 of my 13 cards, to 4D, which would show only 10 of my 13 cards. Auken: 4C. I am in the trying mood. Would partner open 1C with 5/5 in the blacks? At least 4C describes my hand very well. Partner will know exactly what to do with a good 5-card club suit and bad spades. Let's just hope that 3NT was not our last making contract. Wyganowski: 4C: It is very unlikely that we can’t make 10 tricks in no trumps or 11 in diamonds. If I bid 4D partner may have a hard choice. 4C lets him reveal his diamond support and describes my hand better. There you have it. I think all three factions presented strong arguments to back their case, so you will score reasonably well provided you chose one of the three actions supported by the panel. For the record, partner held Axxxxxx/K/KJ/Kxx and there were no horrific breaks, so 13 tricks were fairly easy in any of diamonds, hearts or notrump. 7. Neither Vul. Dealer East. IMPs A K J 6 A J 7 5 A K 6 8 4 West North East South --- --- 3D Pass ? ACTION MARKS PANEL Competitors' VOTES Entries (%) 5D 10 6 32 3NT 8 3 14 3H 7 4 12 6D 7 2 5 4C 6 1 1 4NT 4 2 18 3S 3 1 6 5C 1 1 3 Double 0 1 6 Well, thank a bunch, guys and girls. Our experts suggest NINE alternatives here, including bidding all five denominations. As no choice received support from more than 30% of the panel’s, I am left with a nightmare when it comes to the marking. Let’s hear what they have to say in support of the various actions - we start with those who choose to raise partner’s suit… Reus: 5D. My partners never have club stoppers so 3NT would be a flier. But I should have a reasonable play for 11 tricks in diamonds so long as partner has a 7-card suit. Bird: 5D. The odds are high that you have two club losers. There is also a fair possibility that you have five club losers in 3NT. Bidding game in diamonds seems absolutely fine to me. It's not as if you have any way to investigate a more ambitious contract. (I have always thought that a 4D response should be forcing, to allow investigation. It's of limited value as a pre-empt.) Cohen: 5D. 3NT at pairs, 5D at IMPs. Opposite my 1980's partner (Marty Bergen), I'd pass and hope not to get doubled. He has more faith in your pre-empts, though, Larry - Marty advances (with 3H) without comment. Paranjape: 5D. It is difficult to ascertain club values in partner's hand. A fast arrival at 5D might lead to a friendly lead whereas a slow approach will almost certainly result in a club lead. McCallum: 5D. The odds don't favor partner having a club control, and even when he does, we aren't likely to have a cold 12 tricks. We may not even have 11. (I don't suppose the system has bid available to ask for a singleton after a preempt...) You’re right, Kate - we don’t. Drew explains how one might add one for those addicted to ‘twiddly bits’… Cannell: 5D. Probably the most likely chance for the game bonus. Sure, 3NT might make, and so might 6D. I play 5C as an asking bid in clubs (4C = natural force - some play 4C as trump asking in diamonds) - this; (5C - asking) would give us the best shot at finding 6D. Marshall also mentions Drew’s toy but prefers a more optimistic action… Miles: 6D. With most partners I would just bid 6D, giving the opponents no clue to the best opening lead. That may be the best solution with anyone. But with a few people I play that a jump in a new suit (in this case 5C) is an asking bid regarding that suit. If he has no club control, he bids the first step (5D). Kleinman: 6D. For his 3D opening, partner needs more than just a queen-high 7-card suit… He does? Maybe in the US… Here in the UK, there is no guarantee that he will have either the queen or seven diamonds!) Kleinman (continued) …If he has, for example, xx/x/QJ10xxxx/Kxx, 6D is better than 50%, for some of the time that South has the CA he will lead it. There's no "scientific" way to probe for slam with this hand, and it's more important to make more of the slams you reach (good or bad) than to bid only the "good" slams. What about bidding some number of notrumps? Brock: 3NT. Gamble on the clubs. Andrew suggests that it is not such a gamble as it might seem… Robson: 3NT. The best practical shot with opponents usually leading majors. This could be very wrong, of course, but 5C rates to need the spade finesse whereas 3NT will always make on a non-club lead. Robinson: 3NT. Should make unless they take five tricks It’s hard to argue with that logic, Steve J Wyganowski: 4NT. Blackwood. I intend to play 6D if partner has an ace of clubs. Ron takes similar action, and throws in a system idea of considerable merit too… Klinger: 4NT (or 4C if that is RKCB for Ds). Prepared to play 6D opposite one ace or 5D otherwise. What about bidding a major? Gordon: 3H. If partner bids 3NT, I will bid 4D, hoping to hear 5C, and I can then give him 6D. If he bids 4H, I will bid 5D - a slam try! All this presumes a sensible, rule of 500 style 3D. There are some players in my bridge club where I would pass 3D quickly. What I wouldn’t do is bid 3NT - it’s not good for partnership confidence to lose the first 5 or 6 club tricks with 5/6D making. 3H is better than 3S - you don’t mind a non-H lead! You have no imagination, Irving. To see why, we get a tongue in cheek (I think) answer from one of the world’s funniest bridge writers… Kantar: 3H. If partner has a spade stop he will bid 3S and I will bid 5D. If partner has a club stop he will bid 3NT and I will pass. If partner raises to 4H I will bid 5D trying not to look beseechingly at partner as I bid it. Victor tries something similar with rather more hope… Silverstone: 3H. How many scientists does it take to score a 10? More than you got on this deal, Victor. Silverstone (continued) …What does 3NT from partner mean over 3H - club stop? And 3S = spades stop, or vice versa? Now that all is clear I bid 3H. This seems less flexible… Pottage: 3S. 4S, 3NT and 5C all look like possible games (the poor hearts count against a possible 4-3 heart fit). I’m sure he knows what he is talking about! I’ll certainly be impressed if 5C is playable, but perhaps he means 5D! Two panelists opted to bid the fifth denomination, and I am a little surprised that only one chose the psychic cue-bid… Auken: 4C. This, of course very much depends on the style of preempts. 4C is a slam-try agreeing diamonds. It would be good to be able to differentiate between an honour cue-bid and shortness. Sabine, I think you’ve played with Zia too often! Bourke: 5C. If it is an asking bid. Otherwise 5D. You’re supposed to tell us, Tim. Sitting opposite an unknown expert, would you expect 5C to be an asking bid? Finally, it is rare for a call chosen by a panellist to score zero, but Krzysztof manages it here. What is, perhaps, more surprising, is that 6% of the competition entrants also thought that the opening 3D came from RHO… Jassem: Double. Easy now - more difficult later. It certainly will be, as the Director will be silencing your partner! Thanks to all of our panelists for their time. This feature will return to the web site on a more regular basis in the New Year.