Marking: 2♥ = 10, 4NT = 7,  4♦= 4, 3♦= 1

A hand from the top game in town…the Ace of Clubs Thursday morning duplicate! Partner held AKJx, x, Qx, KQ109xx making 7♦ or 7NT laydown. The problem of course is to avoid the 4-4 spade fit where the ♠Q is missing and was indeed offside. The trap with many such slam hands is not to commit too soon to a fragile trump suit.

Not letting me down and keeping all future options open….

Anne Rosen: 2♥ - Fourth suit forcing. There are no suitable number of spades to bid and I don't know that that's the right denomination anyway. Hopefully I will be able to judge better after partner's next bid.

Jill Feldman: 2♥ - Much too powerful to do anything else. Don’t know yet whether to play in spades or diamonds.

David Bakhshi: 2♥ - Bidding the fourth suit as the first step on a hand that is too good to raise spades directly. Holding bad spades, it is still possible that we need to investigate a slam in diamonds or No Trumps, so establishing a game force at a low level is important to allow for full investigation of how well our hands are fitting.

Catherine Seale: 2♥ – Fourth Suit Forcing. I will agree spades on my next bid and get into a cue bid sequence, planning to either use RKCB or perhaps jump to bid 5♠ later on.

Peter Kaufmann: 2♥

Jeremy Dhondy: 2♥ - Superficially attractive to bid RKCB and if he has strong spades then this maybe the easiest way to a grand but I don't want to rule out other contracts and if he has ♠Qxxx then ending even in 5♠ would not look very clever.

Peter Crouch: 2♥, slowly slowly catchee monkey or something like that. If he has a singleton diamond as is likely then this hand is not that great and will depend on partner’s spades for a possible slam.

Catherine Draper: 2♥ - I am not sure that I will play in spades or diamonds yet, so need to get a bit more info.

Steve Capal: 2♥ I think I would like to get my super raise over here via 4th suit forcing!

Driving to the spade slam without really investigating alternate options.

Neill Harcus: 4NT. I've got the source of tricks. Won't bid 7♠ without AKQx opposite and won't bid 6 without 2 of the top 3 honours opposite (can bid 5♥ over 5♦).

Gail Hoffman: 4NT do not like splintering with a singleton ace

Simon Ardeman: 4NT agreeing Spades. I am interested solely in the quality of partners trumps, so will bid 5, 6 or 7, depending on responses. I suspect a bad trump break.

On his own (not for the first time nor for the last I suspect) and attempting to rewrite basic bidding theory as usual. 3♦ is not forcing Uriah however loudly you  choose to bid it!

Uriah Jacobson: 3♦. I think I would have bid an initial 2♦, in spite of the spade suit.  I play 1♠ as 100% forcing, so how to force?  For me 4♦ would definitely show a solid suit, so I just bid 3♦.

I was slightly surprised that no panellist chose 3♥. A jump in the fourth suit can be played in one of three ways a) Natural & forcing b) Natural & invitational or c) my personal preference is for it to be  a cue-bid agreeing the last bid suit. Indeed Catherine Seale chose this losing option at the table hence creating quite an interesting problem for our panel I feel.

Marking: 2♥ = 10, 3♣ = 9, Pass = 4

An old type of problem with a new slant. If considering raising clubs it makes sense in modern style to play 2NT as the best club raise and for 3♣ to be slightly less. However the reality of this problem for me is that we should not be supporting clubs at all but giving false preference to 2♥. The ♥Q10 make a superb contribution towards a possible 4♥ contract if partner has enough to continue the auction.

The correct decision for me. 

Peter Crouch: 2♥, clear at pairs, maybe 2N in a weak no-trump base (♣ raise) but don’t really like it with all the soft values.

David Bakhshi: 2♥. Our hand is too good to pass, while raising to 3♣ isn’t especially attractive.  Usually right to give ‘false preference’ on hands where game is still possible.  2♥ allows partner to bid again with hands with invitational values or play the 5-2 fit (no disaster) when he has no game interest.

Catherine Seale: 2♥ – Need to keep the bidding alive in case partner has a 16 count but opposite a weak hand and holding such a good doubleton in hearts, think that might be a safer spot than 3♣.

Uriah Jacobson:  2♥. With 10-11 hcps I could bid 2NT.  This hand is not strong enough for that so the question is 3♣ or 2♥ and I prefer the latter, perhaps even at pairs. No Uriah partner cannot have 10/11 hcps as we are playing Acol!

Catherine Draper: 2♥. Although I have pretty much a maximum, the values are lying wrongly so I think I will say 2♥.

If raising clubs then the following seems about right on values.

Anne Rosen: 3♣- This is the sort of hand where it can be worth showing an upper end 1NT bid, by raising clubs in case partner has a 17 or 18 count, by either bidding 3♣ or 2NT. However, the way my honours are placed doesn't look good for 3NT or for any other games. So I'm going to bid 3♣ showing a worse club raise than 2NT. At pairs I would probably just bid 2♥ - which could well be right anyway.

Jill Feldman: 3♣. I have 2NT available as a better raise in clubs, so as this is IMPS I must raise partner.

Jeremy Dhondy: 3♣. If you had a better hand with good support for clubs you would bid 2NT so partner should not expect 5♣ and a maximum. You are worth a raise to keep them out and also in case partner is maximum and wants to try for game.

Neill Harcus: 3♣. Courtesy raise. Values outside clubs will help no trumps.  ♥Q10 sufficient justification if I need it.

Steve Capal: 3♣ not gonna give opponents an easy two level shot here..a pre emptive 3♣.

Simon Ardeman: 3♣. What's the problem? 

Probably not appreciating that 3♣ does not need to be completely maximum (2NT to show that) bidding seems clear since a) we may make game and b) passing allows the opponents to protect much too easily.

Gail Hoffman: Pass-  better to be in a 4-4 fit then a 5-2 fit

Peter Kaufmann: Pass

Marking: 4♥ = 10, 2NT = 9, 3♠ = 7,  X = 6, 4♦ = 5, 3♥= 3, 2♠ = 3

A toss up between practicality and science here. Do we just bid 4♥ or do we try to involve partner?

The majority vote for just bidding game and thus probably silencing the opponents.

David Bakhshi: 4♥. Always awkward when an opponent makes a 1NT overcall and we have bad trumps, but our values suggest that partner has an unbalanced hand, and therefore at least five hearts.  Would be nice to make an invitational bid, but would guess we don’t have one available in ‘Ace’ standard.  Could start by bidding 2NT suggesting a distributional game force, but prefer to try to make the opponents guess a little, especially at this vulnerability, where they may think that we’re trying to steal.  The other option would be to double, but am concerned that defending 1NT may not work out so well if partner is short in spades, and if they bid, then we may help them make the right decision when we later support hearts.           

Peter Crouch: 4♥, let the next hand guess, more clear in a 5 card major system.

Uriah Jacobson: 4♥. Even though partner could well hold 4 spades, a straightforward game raise seems best.  I have not agreed with any partner that 4♦ would still apply.

Simon Ardeman: 4♥. I have 7 losers and 4 card support for partner so why not?. Even if we have a spade contract, the losers in Hearts (if any) remain. I am guessing that the 1NT overcall is based on a Heart stop and a long solid Diamond suit.

Peter Kaufmann: 4♥

A sensible choice – 2NT for me commences life as a 2-suiter but if we support partner’s suit changes into a UCB. 

Anne Rosen: 2NT - Not sure really. Depends what the 1NT bidder's got. If he's got a single heart stop and diamonds we may well be able to make a game, however if he's got a more normal strong balanced hand probably not. Whatever I bid partner will be guessing. What I'd like to do is to show a good raise to 3♥ and I'm hoping that 2NT does this...

Catherine Seale: 2NT – I thought this problem was horrid! Initially wanted to pass but it is very likely that with long diamonds that opponents will remove anyway and if the 1NT bidder has really good diamonds it may well be that 1NT could make while we make 4♥. It maybe that 2NT could be showing minors but would correct any bid to hearts and think that would be game invitational.

Jeremy Dhondy: 2NT. I hope it is part of the methods to show a sound raise with 4 card trump support by bidding 2NT. If not then no doubt I will get 1/10. It would be nice to show the spades to help partner judge but there is no convenient way to do it. 2NT has the advantage that if partner is not sure he can bid a minor over 2NT and if he does so I will bid game.

Yes we could have a nice penalty but the reality is nearly always different. The danger of the choice below is that the opponents may get together in diamonds.

Jill Feldman: X -  Choices, choices! I’m sure the contract won’t end there but I’ll double first and see what happens.

Neill Harcus: X -  Then consider bidding game.  Overcaller unlikely to be bidding 1NT on basis of solid diamonds (unlike 3NT).  Simply blasting 4♥ could be embarrassing. The vulnerability's in our favour and partner can surely cope with diamonds as trumps. Expect to defend a doubled contract of some sort but can think about 4♥ later.

Fit showing jumps are a very good idea generally in competition. I personally play however that after a 1NT overcall that they do not apply (weak jumps instead).

Catherine Draper: 3♠ - Can I bid 3♠ as a fit jump ? If next hand bids lots of diamonds - partner will have more idea of my hand & can take a decision.

Steve Capal: 3♠ - this surely must get some old points here..good hand for a fit showing jump...yes??

Betwixt and between…

Gail Hoffman: 3♥ trying to show a goodish hand but not suitable for doubling.