Bidding Panel - April 2004 - Marked by Anne Rosen

Marking: 3NT = 10, 2H= 6, 5D= 5, 3S=3

A difficult problem. The crux of the issue, was of course, that you might make a diamond slam, not just game, against very little, but should you go past 3NT?  Having considered this or not, 3NT was the top choice for the wrong and the right reasons. Oh well.

Jeremy: 3NT. Horrible choice to make. 4D takes us beyond 3NT. Whilst this is less of a sin at teams the fact is that 3NT is still the most likely game. 2NT is an underbid and I don’t do those. 2H is the intellectual’s bid................. (There’s one coming up soon.........)
Neil R: 3NT. Clearly 5D (or even 6) could be very good with 3NT poor, but this is not necessarily so. 4D would be my second choice.
Jeff: 3NT. Partner has a minimum and 6 diamonds, in which case I will make the practical bid of 3NT.
Pauline: 3NT Risky but despite the weak 2D bid there is still a good likelihood of game if East has 6 diamonds. Probably a better chance of 9 tricks rather than 11, and better played by West with his heart holding. 3D doesn’t promise stops in both the majors, and 4D takes us past 3NT anyway.
Catherine: 3NT – 6 D’s,1 S, 1C and a H trick on the lead ?  Looks much better than a diamond game.
Neill H: 3NT. You must have 9 tricks on top after the opening lead.
Gail: 3NT. We have at least a 10 card fit in diamonds and will likely be able to run 9 quick tricks.
Jill: 3NT. Hoping to right-side the contract and take 9 tricks.
Peter: 3S. (I assume this is meant to be a splinter supporting diamonds, but attempting to keep 3NT in the game at the same time. However, rather than hoping partner might guess correctly you could bid your hand by either 3NT or 4D.........)
Steve: 5D. I think 6 is a long way off, partner needing too many key cards – 3NT looks like it may fail with only one stop in each of the majors.
David: 2H. Tough problem to start with! Assuming partner is Unbalanced, seems most likely that she will have Club shortage (no opposition Major Suit bidding). While it’s tempting to look for 3NT, expect to make 7D opposite just xxx, AQxx, AKxxx, x. Therefore, want to give partner as much room as possible to describe her hand further. Expect 2H to be FG. As a result, think she should only ever bid 3H with H support.
Uriah: 2H. Hoping I have the agreement that 2 Major now is never raised to 4M. I would have liked to bid 2D ( Inverted minor raise) then partner could describe his hand. (Just as well we’re not letting you play any of your systems then when there are good natural alternatives......)

Marking: 2S = 10, 3C = 8

An almost unanimous panel.....with varying thoughts.

Jeremy: 2S. I would have bid 1NT (less than perfect) on the previous round because now it is going to be close to impossible to get this hand across. We are far from certain to make game in my opinion. (Quite agree). For this hand and number 7 we may want to make a note to discuss how far a cue bid is forcing. It’s traditional to play it as forcing to suit agreement opposite an immediate take out double but I think it may be weaker opposite a protective double. However, thinking they will make game............

Neil R: 2S. Minor suit finesses (if any) look to be favourable. I think we are heading for a probable game here – lets just start by initiating a force.
David: 2S. Likely to make Game opposite as little as x, Kxxx, Kxxx, Kxxx. Will bid 3S over partner’s 3 level response to keep 3NT in the picture. Seems right to force to a Game which rates to be no worse than a finesse through the opening bidder.
Jill: 2S. Playing for time unsure of the right spot.
Neill H: 2S. Partner is a passed hand. Clearly he’s got hearts else he would have made a 1NT overcall. You could blast 3NT and hope something good happens, but 2S (denying hearts) could lead us to game if there is one (in a minor-suit or even 3NT).
Gail: 2S. This should convey a better hand no 4 card heart suit and no stop in spades.
Catherine: 2S - Didn’t overcall 1NT because no spade stop. Would partner now bid 3NT with good hand and a stopper?  Hope so. Without, I think partner would now bid their best minor suit assuming they believed that hearts, or at least some tolerance for the suit, had already been shown.
Pauline: 2S. Not a wonderful bid, but can’t think of anything better to describe the hand. 2C is too weak, 3 clubs would promise at least 5, and a no-trump bid would promise a Spade stop.
Uriah: 2S.
Jeff: 2S. Partner appears to have a maximum pass so I will bid 2S for further information.
Peter: 2S. But I was tempted to pass. (Must have been your trump stack .....)

Steve: 3C. Partner has passed but makes an obvious re-opening double. I won’t punish him/her – 3C! (Quite sensible really)

Marking: 3S = 10, 4H = 5, 3H = 5

3S seems fairly clear cut. If you’re to have any chance of bidding a club slam you need to tell partner about your source of tricks. However, if partner has got two spades you will want to play 4S and not potentially get ruffed off in clubs. Yes, 3H would be a splinter but just doesn’t get your trick-taking potential across.......

Jeremy: 3S. Showing spades and clubs, although 6 good ones is above par. You can’t rule out 4S at pairs and it may, on a good day, be the best route to a slam.
Peter: 3S, of course, 3H splinter might be confusing.
Neil R: 3S. Fit showing. We play fit showing jumps in competition so despite south’s negative double advertising spades, I feel the spade pips are too nice not to try to get spades heavily into the mix. To splinter is a bit short-sighted....
Uriah: 3S. Fit-jump expecting partner to hold 6 clubs and 4 hearts?  Where are all the hearts? 
Jeff: Fit jump the obvious bid.
Neill H: 3S. 2S would be natural, so this is a fit-jump. XX, 2S, 4H are possibilities (but not good ones), but 3S gets my hand across without committing us too high.
Catherine: 3S - Fit showing jump. Presumably showing a willingness to play in at least 4C so partner with spade support will know what to do.
David: 3S. Not a great fan of Fit-Jumps but given our methods, seems the best description of our hand. Partner rates to be 1435 or 1426. Will aim to offer a choice of 4S/5C by bidding 4H over 3NT/4C.

Giving up on slam..............

Steve: 4H. Hmmm. We can opt for a splinter, jump raise or fit show. – 4H for me! (Well if you’re going to splinter, 4H will show your void and a better hand so why not bid this rather than 3H.........)

Gail: 3H. Splinter agreeing clubs because despite the points being relatively even 5C looks as if it is in with a chance because of the distribution.
Pauline: 3H. Splinter to show strength and good support for clubs. I don’t fancy the spades with four in the South hand, and where are all the hearts? 
Jill: 3H. Happy to agree clubs and show a shortage immediately.

Marking: 2H = 10, 1NT = 9, 2D = 6

Three streams of thought here. If you’re going to make a game you need partner to make a positive noise on their own, not be forced into it. Both 1NT and 2H give them that option and there’s not much to pick and choose .........

Jeremy: 2H. I would overcall 1H if my SK were a small spade so I am showing a good hand here. I don’t believe in doubling to show an opening hand when I have a decent 5 card major. Only when I might miss game as here would I double. You might bid 1NT to show about 19-20 but although the points are right the texture of the hand is wrong.
Gail: 2H. I wish to show 16+ points and a fifth heart.
Neill H: 2H. Awkward choice between 2H and 1NT. The diamond stop’s a bit ropey but the heart suit’s thread-bare. 1NT gets the point count across, but I think 2H is more likely to get us somewhere if we’ve a fit in either major.
Jill: 2H. I’m not telling you why..........
Catherine: 2H - Not strong enough for a 2S bid. If partner is reading you for 16+ (with no agreement to limit this ie16-19) then should continue with 6+ (maybe a good 5 count).

Neil R: 1NT. This shows more than 1NT directly, i.e. about 18 to 20 points. 2D is the mainstream alternative but may drive the hand too high facing zilch. 2H might also work, but could lead to a very silly contract.
Pauline: 1NT. This shows 18+ points and stops in all suits.
Uriah: 1NT. Tempted to pass, but feel I can afford 1NT.
Steve: 1NT. Double followed by 1NT is I think better than 2H here! My suit quality is just too poor.
David: 1NT. I would probably bid 1NT in an attempt to get my hand off my chest in one go, even though I risk losing a 5-3 Heart Fit. Feel that 2H overstates my playability in hearts, and makes it tougher to play in spades. Bidding 2D is unattractive, as while it may keep more options open, I think it’s likely to leave us guessing over partner’s rebid. Absolutely

Those who prefer to force partner and guess again next round.

Jeff: 2D. Lets wait and see what develops.........
Peter: 2D............

Marking: 1NT = 10, X = 8, Pass = 3

To bid or not to bid?  That is the question?  Or really what should I bid, that is the question?  

Although two of our panellists decided to pass, bidding on this hand is the normal action which will be right more often than not. Double, does have some merit in that it shows your holding in the unbid major, but you could have a different/ or much weaker hand. However, 1NT has more merits in that a) you are balanced; b) you have stops in their suits, and c) you are in the right range, so all things considered it seems like the most descriptive bid.

Jeremy: 1NT. Completely obvious once I had noticed that it was the only hand where I was south not west. 1NT in the risky sandwich position should be about 17-19.
Neil R: 1NT, natural for me, and standard in the sandwich position.
Jill: 1NT. I’m perfectly balanced.
Neill H: 1NT. It’s happened before. Opposition open an 11-count and respond on 4. No reason not to come into the auction.
David: 1NT. Though it may be better if partner was declarer (avoid spade lead through her Q etc), like to describe my hand in one bid. 1NT should be Natural by an Unpassed hand, as there are plenty of ways to show 2-suiters, e.g. Dbl, 2D and 2NT. 2S (RHO’s suit) should also be Natural. Some sound thoughts here .....

Jeff: Double. I could bid INT but I would prefer to play in a suit, so......
Gail: Double. Nothing really appeals I would Double and pass anything partner bids.
Peter: Double
Pauline: Double. With eighteen points a bit good for 1NT and I do have 4 Hearts.

Not normally known for caution.......

Steve: Pass - Well the day that I do this at the table is the day hell freezes over but PASS!?#! Can anyone feel the drop in temperature? ? ? ?  (A soul mate.......)
Catherine: Pass- Why get involved when opponents are in a forcing sequence?  Partner is unlikely to have more than 4 points so would prefer to defend.

Marking: 2S=10, 4D=6, 3C=6, 3D=5, 2H=5

Pauline: 2S. I am a bit weak for this reverse, but the club bid has improved my hand. I am too good for 2H (yes, you are.........)
Neil R: 2S. 3D is certainly possible but I love my partially fitting hand. 2S is forcing to game so it should ease any later problem-skies!
Jeff: 2S. As I have 3 diamonds and a singleton club I am going to upgrade and borrow a point.
Catherine: 2S - This hand has fantastic controls and is worth a reverse. Expect to show diamond support later and at least partner can now read this hand for a 5 card heart suit.
David: 2S. Like my hand, and prepared to shade a reverse in competition. Keen to show the 5th heart, but don’t like 2H on a hand with good potential but a relatively poor first suit. Hoping to get the chance to ‘shape out’ by bidding D below 3NT. Would prefer 3D to 2H, as 5D would become the most likely game if partner couldn’t then bid 3H.
Gail: 2S. A point short for the reverse but with a singleton in the club suit I like my hand once partner can bid at the 2 level.
Jeremy: 2S. I don’t think we have a spade fit otherwise partner would have doubled 2C (Is partner a passed hand?  No. Therefore why can partner not have a good hand and decide to bid their longer diamonds before their spades, simple really!) but 2S has the merit of showing where my values are, it does not show reversing values in my opinion. I will bid 3D over 2NT or 3C.

Following the same train of thought............

Neill H: 2S would be a reverse and partner’s denied spades anyway (But, still not right.........)

Uriah: 3C. This hand is not good enough for a reverse ((Mmm really). Does E promise another bid if I pass?  ((Note: East is your partner it could get passed out!)
Steve: 3C. Find out more about partner’s hand (UCB?? ) (Whereas you could of course bid your own.......)

Peter: 4D, slam try...........

Jill: 2H. Bid up ........

Marking: 2H=10, 2D=8, 1H=6, 1D=5

A lot of options here in terms of suit and level. You’ve just about enough to bid at the two level, but 2D might deny a 4 card major, but do you want to bid 2H on only a 4 card suit here?  On balance the panel thought it was worth bidding at the two level and a better idea to bid their major rather than diamonds......

Catherine: 2H - I think this hand is worth more than 1H and playing pairs would rather play in a major than a minor opposite a weak double from partner.
Neil R: 2H. I play a cue as forcing to suit agreement, so we could not stop at the 3 level if partner now bids 2S, as is not unlikely. I therefore want to limit my hand as partner is bound to have a good hand since a) I have club shortage, b) no raise from south.
Neill H: 2H. Just about got the bid. If partner has spades then I’ve got ruffing value if little else of help in the suit.
David: 2H. If I had both Majors, would bid 2C, which I like to play as either the values for the 2-level with both Majors or any FG. With D’s and H’s though, prefer to introduce the Major. Keen to encourage partner to bid again, so too good for a 1-level response.

Jeff: 2D. Although 2H is a possibility I always like to bid my longest suit so I will bid 2D.
Jill: 2D. The only known fit.

Pauline: 1H. This is difficult. I don’t like 2D (not strong enough), and the club situation looks odd (where are they all?). So showing my 4 card major at the lowest level is probably best.

Jeremy: 1D. You are not good enough to bid 2C which is as forcing as you have agreed it to be after the row which followed hand two. 1D might work badly but it will be okay if partner bids again. We might, however, play 1D instead of several hearts. This risk is a bit lower because there are a lot of clubs somewhere out there. If partner has them he has a good hand and if the opponents have them they will come to my rescue.
Steve: 1D. Although 1D may be a tad of an underbid it probably won’t get passed out and will get a second chance to show our hearts.
Gail: 1D. I am likely to get another chance to bid and show my partner a slightly better hand and my distribution.

Marking: 3H=10, 3C=9, 2NT=5, 3NT=5

A very split panel on this one, with four possible “right” answers emerging. If I had to vote I would go for 3C, which once you’ve thought of it, is clearly the right bid. But, failing that, 3H is the best of the rest...I’ll let Jeremy tell you why.....

Jeremy: 3H. If 3NT is the right contract then it is probably better played by partner so I will give myself the maximum chance of playing it that way up even if 3H is a bit of an overbid. If partner hasn’t got any stop we might get too high but 2NT by me is too likely to lead to the wrong contract anyway.
Pauline: 3H. Choice is between this and 2 or 3 NT. If partner has 6 clubs then there is a possible slam in clubs with all my points in Aces, so 3H (FSF) gives us best chance of finding out.
Steve: 3H - This looks so right to use 4th suit forcing, and if partner has Qxx of hearts 3NT is now right-sided. Diamonds are far too poor to bid three times.
Uriah: 3H. I don’t want to wrong side 3NT.

If I had two casting votes they would have gone to..........

David: 3C. Will content myself with simple preference for now to give partner the chance to express the nature of her hand. 3C leaves plenty of room to explore all possibilities. Prefer 3C to 2NT, which could easily result in 3NT being played from the wrong side, and also sounds like a hand with more values in the red suits, and therefore less promising opposite a Black 2-suiter.
Neil R: Clear cut expert action. No need to rush into an anti positional 3NT bid or bid an unwieldy fourth suit 3H bid. 3C is economical, descriptive, efficient and forcing. Right now you’ve said it all, let’s hear who disagrees with you.....

Jeff: 2NT. Partner wants me to describe my hand, so as I have a heart stopper I will bid 2NT. (Are you happy to bid 2NT non- forcing opposite a reverse from partner?)
Neill H: 2NT. The six-card diamond suit is not much use on its own. Partner will raise to 3NT with suitable diamond holding or extras. Otherwise 2NT is likely to be the limit of the hand.
Peter: 2NT

Less economical and descriptive...

Catherine: 3NT – 2NT should show a weak hand after a responder’s reverse and this hand is stronger than a minimum holding.
Gail: This is the game I think we can make.

So there you have it the end of a difficult set. I hope this has been an entertaining and educational experience for both members and competitors alike.

As you can see this quarter saw a much greater divergence in the number of options considered by the panel and the marks scored. But as with many things it is not only the marks that matter, there are some real pearls of wisdom for us all in the text.

This months winner is Neil Rosen whose philosophy of picking mainstream answers on each hand seemed to work, followed closely by our guest panellist Jeremy Dhondy.