Bidding Panel - Answers, February 2005 - Marked by Neil Rosen

Hand 1: EW Game, Dealer East, Pairs
ª 876 © K53 ¨ AK876 § 104	W - 3¨ ?	N - P	E 2§ 3ª	S P P

Marking: 4H=10, 4S=9, 4NT=6, 3NT=5

We start with a problem designed to look at and update standard bidding methods. I am a great believer that 2C auctions should not pre-empt themselves and thus I recommend that after a positive response of 2NT or above then the auction should be forced to 4NT at least. With these methods available we could bid a comfortable and forcing 4S on the above hand.

The following panellists understand the crux of this problem:

John Vos: 4H. I feel my choices here are between 3NT, 4D, 4H and 4S. I think 4S would be an underbid of my hand. I’m assuming we are forced to 4NT and thus 3NT is tempting but would deny the third spade (not to mention the absence of club stopper). 4D would imply a 6-card or better quality suit.
Jeremy Dhondy: 4H – Close. If I bid 4S then it is, in my view, forcing ( a positive is usually forcing to 4NT) but it uses up a lot of room. 4D sounds like a lorry load of diamonds. I have a sneaking fancy for 3NT as it will enable partner to show his hand a bit more clearly but I think I am bound to show my spade support and good hand.
Catherine Seale: 4H - I have wavered between 4H and 5S. I think I would be forgiven for only having a King for this cuebid (playing Italian style this wouldn't be a problem). If partner holds AKQxxx, Ax, xx, AKx you want to be in seven. If you bid 5 S I'm not sure that partner can ever find out about the HK.

Catherine – I would stick to “normal” cue-bidding for a while please.

Peter Kaufmann: 4H - We are game forced and I have made a "positive" response, so I think it best to tell partner where my values are. If I just bid 4S, it might suggest I have nothing to add to my positive but I'm a card better.
Uriah Jacobson: 4H - Bidding over a 2C opener has been much discussed without general agreement. If you play 2D as a relay or a POSITIVE without specific suit holdings, as I do, you would need another D to take up so much space. At the 2-level I am less stringent, but would hesitate to bid 2M on AQxx as has been suggested. With this sequence I would like to play 3NT as denying S support, so I could now cue bid 4H ( 1st or 2nd round control ) as pard knows that I have 2/3 top honours in D.

A nice answer below which demonstrates a modern treatment of responding 3H/S to 2C.

Neill Harcus: 4H - Having shown a positive response we are forced to 4S or 4NT. Would normally play 3H response as showing 4-5 or better in H/D and 4H now would be a cue-bid. 3NT forcing-bid but unhelpful particularly with 3-card support. 4H must have a top honour and shows partner where my controls are (D and H).

Some panellists appear not to have even considered whether 4S is forcing or not.

Gail Hoffman: 4S - I have already shown a positive so all I need to do is give suit confirmation partner will now go on.
Jeff Alper: 4S. Is this a problem? I have given a positive and now support partner.
Steve Capal: 4S- I think once we have given a positive our job is done...leave the rest to partner to start enquiring...so 4 spades is my bid!!!

Some have!

Jill Feldman: 4S - After I've shown a positive response to 2C I play that the auction is forcing to at least 4NT. Let's agree partner's suit and let him take control.
David Bakhshi: 4NT. Would 4S be forcing? It’s hard to imagine that partner would pass once we’ve made a positive response and then supported her suit. While I’m tempted to bid 4S to allow partner to take control, I’ve decided to opt for 4NT (RKCB) myself, as I think it may be an advantage to play 6NT from my side if partner has a good black 2-suiter e.g AKQJxx, xx, -, AKQJx. If partner has a one-suited hand, it’s unlikely that he will gain more bidding 4NT, and it shouldn’t be a problem for me to investigate a grand slam in that case.
Peter Crouch: 4N, a good hand for those who play 4S as forcing. Not my style though as I like to open 2C with fairly light hands with a major (not a minor) and respond with quite light hands and a good suit. Whether this hand should respond 3D with what is essentially a balanced hand is a matter of style although responding 2D creates it’s own problems. I think with the good controls and 3 card support I will drive a slam and bidding 4N will allow us to investigate the grand by reassuring partner that we have all the key cards if that is the case.

I really don’t like the following choice at all. It neither resolves the forcing issue nor the spade support, though clearly the next two panellists have firm arrangements in their regular partnerships.

Anne Rosen: 3NT - Forcing for the moment and showing a balanced(ish hand). I play 2C followed by a positive as forcing to 4NT, except that 4 major can be passed – and I don’t want that to happen. Three small spades aren’t brilliant and I will hopefully be in a better position to consider the right strain depending if partner rebids S, supports D or whatever.
Thanasis Argiropolous: 3NT - Opening 2C comes with its own set of problems.. Modern bidding theory has dealt with it recently; it has been suggested that after a 2C opening and a positive response, the auction is forced to 4NT thereby reclaiming the lost bidding space. In that context I would bid 3NT thereby showing the balanced nature of my hand, intending to bid 4S on top of partner’s next bid which in turn could be a second suit or a fragment more often than not with a control. Although it does not show a S fit I do not think that bidding 3NT necessarily denies one. Unless partner rebids her S there is no problem (and why would partner do that). Furthermore I get the opportunity of finding out the full value of the HK. When West rebids 4S, East will be in prime position to bid Blackwood herself if he so wishes. If East rebids 4S after 3NT then he has got a one suiter where Blackwood was not the right course of action in the first place.

In summation I believe we received some well considered answers to this problem. I hope people reading this will implement the modern suggestion that plays these auctions as forcing to 4NT.

Hand 2: Game All, Dealer East, IMPs
ª KQJ864 © K1053 ¨ 62 § 7	W - P ?	N - P	E 1¨ 2¨	S 1ª P

Marking: 3D=11!, Pass=10, 2S=7, 2NT=5, 2H=2

A confession to make.... I had this hand in a teams match and bid 3D at the table. I believed then that this incorporated a degree of security to the auction as well as leaving open the possibility of a vulnerable game (3NT / 4H). Sadly I seem to have few supporters!

The majority clearly are simple souls.

Jeff Alper: Pass- Where are we going. I would expect partner to reopen with a good hand.
Catherine Seale: Pass - Partner is either not strong and probably doesn't have xx in S as would have had an(obligatory?) double. If HA is wrong there is no entry for a no trump contract. At Imps why try to improve the contract.
David Bakhshi: Pass - Seems unlikely that we can make a game, as it sounds like partner has a void S, and even if he has 4H, it’s likely to be a hand where though we won’t have many losers, we won’t have many winners either. Assuming the hand is a misfit, then it’ll probably pay to stay low.
Jeremy Dhondy: Pass - I could bid 2S natural but it looks as if this is not a hand with a great fit.
Anne Rosen: Pass - I’m going to pass this because I think it’s an 8-card fit. Partner hasn’t made a take out double so probably hasn’t got 4 H. We may well have an 8-card S fit as well, but we know with the overcall, that they are breaking badly, and this is not pairs, so on balance passing seems the best option.
Gail Hoffman: Pass - tempting to bid 2NT but partner obviously has a hand unsuitable for reopening with a double so unlikely 2NT or more will make
Peter Kaufmann: Pass- Partner must have a pile of ..... We should be able to make 2D and maybe North will come to the rescue!
Steve Capal: Pass - once partner can’t re-open with a double. I am not gonna punish him so I will settle for a 6-2 D fit...though 3NT may have a play if partner can reach dummy to enjoy S later...but my bid is to pass!!!
Peter Crouch: Pass, partner is likely to have a minimum opening bid with D or possibly a non-minimum with a void in D. Either way my hand does not look great. The only worry for me is that partner is 0463 and doesn’t want to double for fear of a penalty pass, but that is only one possibility
Thanasis Argiropoulos: Pass - We may safely assume that East does not have 4H because despite the known shortage in S East refused to reopen with a double. All in all East considers that he has got a D one-suiter. Something like a 1-3-6-3 or similar. The hand looks like a misfit. West’s values do not seem to be working. Pass seems to be the right action. In addition, even expert opponents might get tempted to balance, in which case the partnership is well positioned to extract a juicy penalty. In the unlikely event where East had four poor H that he refused to introduce and then on top of that we have got a 4H game on then tough, I suppose.

The next question is what does 2S actually mean? Is it natural and non-forcing or forcing with some degree of D fit? I personally play the latter.

Not actually addressing this question at all...........

Jill Feldman: 2S - Although I haven't got much I think I should describe my hand. It's imps and who knows, 3NT may be laydown!!!
John Vos: 2S - I’m torn between pass and 2S and I’m not convinced either of these is right. [Neil, I’m ready for your witty put down at this juncture] On balance I think 2S to show south I’m not a patsy who can be walked over!
Neill Harcus: 2S - Imps. Partner has failed to make a take-out double despite being very short in S so he can't have a 4-card H suit. 3NT could easily be there opposite a good 6-card D suit, a C stop and a friendly S lead. 2S is natural and will encourage partner to look for game if he's got a good hand that failed to make a T/O double.

Out on his own – as usual!

Uriah Jacobson: 2H - At Imps with a 6 loser hand and secondary support for what should be a 6-card suit, I might bid 2S at pairs. I see no reason not to bid 2H, which is F1.

Hand 3: Love All, Dealer West, IMPs
ª 7 © KQJ5 ¨ J93 § KQ875	W 1§ ?	N P	E 2ª	S P

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

An old fashioned type problem. Jump- shift style has developed greatly over the years to give a modern style where 2S shows either a) terrific S or b) a strong hand with S and a C fit.

Our panel was fairly split between 2NT and 3C. In classic Acol a 2NT rebid after a strong jump-shift was always reserved for a weakish unsuitable type hand. I personally believe that this style is no longer necessary and 2NT can be reserved for showing a strong no trump. However our majority do not agree.

Peter Kaufmann: 2NT time to show a minimum hand. C too poor to repeat.
Uriah Jacobson: 2NT - Again by agreement: I like to make the lowest possible bid so pard can show whether his bid is based only on S or has C support - 2NT does not show a 1NT re-bid..
Peter Crouch: 2NT, but 3C if that promises 15+ balanced. In my view 2NT is just a waiting bid and therefore 3C should show a 6 card suit (very good 5). 3H would promise a better hand than this as you will not have a H fit in the modern style. 2NT will lead to an economical auction when partner has C support with short D (1C-2S-2NT-3C-3H-3NT) while 3C may encourage partner to raise to the 4-level.
Jeremy Dhondy: 2NT - Balanced hand without S support. Ok so my D could be better. Partner will not have 4H and 2NT will allow him to reveal whether he has forced based on a C fit.
Anne Rosen: 2NT - Partner will have a good hand and will only bid 2S for one of two reasons: (1) he has a self supporting suit of his own or (2) this is a prelude to agreeing my suit. Either way, I have a bad minimum hand and I can’t see any point introducing a 4 card H suit at this juncture.
Thanasis Argiropoulos: 2NT - East can only have one out of two types of hands: either a strong spade one-suiter or a reasonable hand with 5S and 4+C. I intend to bid 2NT which describes the nature of the values in my hand i.e. 12 “soft’ points. There is a small trade-off since the bid misrepresents the shape of my hand a bit. The counter-argument to that being that it saves some space. One could argue that the alternative bid of 3C shows better C than the ones that West has got.

Tackling the issue quite well and recognising the need to conserve bidding space:

David Bakhshi: 3C - Tempting to bid 3H to try to describe my hand since all my values are concentrated in two suits, but on the whole prefer to leave as much room as possible for partner to describe the nature of her hand when he jump shifts. Concerned that bidding 2NT would sound like a balanced hand too strong to open 1NT, so bid despite the fact that my C aren’t great, bid 3C to leave maximum room for partner.
John Vos: 3C - I can see three sensible bids here 2NT, 3C and 3H. Being extremely cautious I am concerned that 2NT might commit us to the wrong game. Similarly I think 3C might overstress the club suit. I would like to bid 3H to show the H suit but what do I do next time with AKQx ? What the hell, I have 5 C and minimum so 3C.
Jill Feldman: 3C - Minimum bid I can make. I think 2NT and 3H show extra values here.
Steve Capal: 3C - I make the bid I would have made over 1S.

Pre-empting their own auctions we have the following:

Jeff Alper: 3H. Partner either has support for C or is single- suited. I will show my second suit and await developments
Catherine Seale: 3H - Value showing and denying D values. Can't be natural as jump shift should deny 2nd suit. If Partner bids 3NT it should be on the right hand but fully expect to hear 3S setting trumps.
Neill Harcus: 3H - The 2S response looks like a single-suiter not a fit-jump. 3H appears to describe my hand nicely.

The main dilemma on this hand appears to be the desire for maximum space-saving by bidding 2NT to allow 3C from partner versus the counter argument that 2NT actually misdescribes the hand. Unfortunately our panel has not really been able to resolve this issue.

Hand 4: Love All, Dealer West, Pairs
ª AK93 © 2 ¨ A4 § A108762	W 1§ 1ª ?	N P P	E 1¨ 2NT	S P P

Marking: 3D=10, 3NT=8, 3H=6, 3C=2

We saw a previous problem to this where it became apparent that a good number of our panellists and entrants alike really did not understand which fairly basic auctions are forcing or not. I thought therefore I would put another one in to try to really clarify for everyone. Firstly let us understand that a repeat of openers first suit is not – repeat not forcing. To probe further, which must be right with such a game/slam suitable hand we are left with the pitiful crutch (4th suit forcing) or to bid 3D. Bidding 3D alleges to be 4135 or the like but has the huge advantage of identifying the H shortage – something that bidding 3H gets nowhere near to achieving.

Tackling the issue well.........

David Bakhshi: 3D -Very similar to a previous problem, as I believe that one is generally expected to bid the fourth suit with a good hand when responder bids 2NT. Returning to opener’s suit should be non-forcing. While it’s tempting to just bid 3NT (pairs scoring), I think that 3D is probably the best forward going move. While partner will tend to expect us to be 4135, 3D has the advantage of suggesting short H. Think that a 3H bid would be more consistent with a hand that is either simply to good to rebid one of opener’s suits, or with a hand that has doubt about the best game, with short D.
Anne Rosen: 3D - Forcing and highlighting the H shortage and looking for the best contract. If partner bids 3NT now I’ll be happy but otherwise 4S or 5C look like possibilities. On the auction partner should realise that I’m not trying to play in D.
Thanasis Argiropoulos: 3D - This is an excellent hand for the few players willing to put - the popular amongst experts’- philosophy of patterning out, to the test. It is difficult to ignore both the fact that West holds the DA as well as H shortage. Surely the latter must be the defining attribute of this offensive, suit -orientated hand. How can we convey all of the above in one forcing bid? 3D. A harmless lie in a situation where West is in full control of the auction.
Peter Crouch: 3D, pinpointing the singleton H and usually showing a 4135 hand. If partner bids 5D over this I will remind him that there were a number of bids between 3D and 5D. Second choice 3H and I may well choose that if I was worried that partner might jump to 5D.
Jeremy Dhondy: 3D - Natural and forcing. Don't yet know what the best game is.

The following panellists make a bid that is pragmatic but in my view inaccurate – due to the well structured hand rich in controls, where 5C, or even 6C ought to be investigated.

Peter Kaufmann: 3NT - I may be missing 6C but partner has shown H values and its pairs so I'm taking the money.
Jill Feldman: 3NT - Can't think of a good alternative!
Gail Hoffman: 3NT - partner is showing 10-12 points this seems to be our limit
Uriah Jacobson: 3NT - If pard needed help in H, he could have bid 2H - FSF.

The following two answers have the merit of initiating a force. Unfortunately they are extremely unlikely to reach the right contract for the right reasons. They eloquently describe why to bid but appear to have missed the superior 3D bid completely.

Catherine Seale: 3H - Showing doubt about level or strain. Partner probably has hearts covered and after the expected 3NT will bid 4C. If partner holds xx, Axx, Kxxxx, Kxx then 6C looks good to me. It should also be possible to play in 4NT.
Neill Harcus: 3H – 4th SF - too good a hand to limit. 3C would not have been forcing.

The final two answers are quite simply barking up the wrong tree. 3C could simply be an 11-count with 6 reasonable clubs. It is not repeat not forcing.

Jeff Alper: 3C -Forcing describing my hand and obviously showing doubt about H.
Steve Capal: 3C - I make a forcing bid of 3C to show I have 6C.

Hand 5: EW Vul, Dealer North, Pairs
ª AQ973 © AJ5 ¨ A6 § 874	W - 1ª ?	N P P	E 1§ 2§	S P P

Marking: 2H=10, 2D=7, 3NT=6, 4C=5, 3D=1

Once again we see how an expert panel refuses to commit these control rich hands unilaterally to 3NT without exploring other options further. The main choices appear to be 2D and 2H. The main danger with 2H would be to be raised to game so most experts would play that a new major like this cannot be raised to 4 only to 3 with 4-card support to enable sensible exploration to take place.

The most descriptive bid in my opinion is ...

David Bakhshi: 2H - Again tempting to just bid 3NT, but feel this is flawed for several reasons, as it’s unclear whether the hand belongs in game or slam, and also not clear which is the best strain. Concerned that 3NT may be better from partner’s hand if it’s only a game hand. Seems that 2H is a better descriptive call than 2D, as I prefer to introduce suits with length if possible. Only mildly concerned that partner will support H, as I think that partner probably ought not to bid 4H as 2H is only forcing for one round, and if he does, there must be a fair chance that we can make a slam.
John Vos: 2H - I can smell the right bid but I can’t quite taste it. 3NT might be right but this would miss the lay down 6C with partner holding as little as AKxxxx and the KS. A 3D “Splinter” is attractive to show one loser but may leave partner with a problem. I think a “patterning” 2H will keep all options open. I’ve heard the term and always wanted to pattern out.
Peter Crouch: 2H, a good hand for those enlightened enough to play puppets and therefore you could bid 3C natural and game forcing. You will be awkwardly placed if partner raises to 3H (for example a hand such as problem 3) but apart from that partner’s next bid should enable you to guess better on the next round. However you are not out of the woods yet, would 3C by you now be forcing over a 2NT rebid by partner or would you have to waffle with 3D?
Neill Harcus: 2H - Which game is right - 5C, 4S or 3NT? 5C unlikely at Pairs. Partner will either have 6-card suit or 4-5 shape. 2H is forcing and partner won't punish me by raising to 4H with 4-card support. I want partner to bid NT with Qxx of diamonds, say or he can support S. Failing which I'll bid 3NT myself.
Anne Rosen: 2H - I could of course bid 3NT, but depending on partners hand either 6C or 4S might be better contracts. I think 2H keeps these both in the game by giving partner the chance to bid out his hand.
Thanasis Argiropoulos: 2H - East could still have 4H, in which case he does not know how to evaluate them. Actually a number of H might still be the right spot for the partnership due to the suitability of West’s hand for a suit contract. The C fit will be West’s safety net if things go wrong which is unlikely.

Afraid of introducing a 3-card major and still unwilling to bid 3NT ...

Catherine Seale: 2D – Forcing- let's see what happens.
Uriah Jacobson: 2D - This should be F1. If not, I bid 3D. I need more info from pard before deciding the final contract, which could be C. It would be nice to be playing the ‘Bourke’ relay.

3D would be a splinter Uriah not a natural bid. No surprise to see you hankering after a system toy rather than attempting to bid your hand properly like the majority of the panel. The Bourke relay to the uninitiated is a bid of the next suit up after opener has repeated his own suit to be an artificial game-force. It does of course solve some problems but creates a whole lot more of course – not something to be recommended unless your name is Uriah of course!

Jeremy Dhondy: 2D - Temporising. No firm idea yet where we are going. You could bid 2H but you would not feel very happy if partner raised that to game.
Peter Kaufmann: 3D - Again 3NT or 6C may be right lets see what he bids over 3D? If he can dredge up 3S with Kx, 6 looks good with my 3 Aces.

Out of synchronicity with the majority of our panel – but in line with many of our club competitors votes we have ...

Gail Hoffman: 3NT - which is what I think we can make.
Jill Feldman: 3NT - I'm probably missing the point here. I know I'm a bit strong, but am I really missing 6C?!
Jeff Alper: 3NT - Practical. A slam is possible but why play for partner to have the right cards.

On his own – he could well be right at the table; but if wrong he cannot retreat to 3NT like the 2D and 2H bidders ...

Steve Capal: 4C - I like my aces and think a slam may be on.

Hand 6: Love All, Dealer West, IMPs
ª Q873 © 5 ¨ AKQ76 § KQ2	W 1¨ ?	N P	E 1NT	S P

Marking: 2C=10, 2D=6, Pass=5, 2S=4, 2NT=2

AI liked this problem when I set it but looking at it now I think it is a bit murky. We had some very well reasoned answers to help us however ...

Having the best of it I feel – particularly as the most likely game is if partner has a big C fit ...

Jeff Alper: 2C - Tricky. Partner has some minor suit holding so let him pick the best spot.
David Bakhshi: 2C - Another tough choice, as it isn’t clear whether we should be exploring the best part score, or bidding towards game. Reluctant to bid 2S as we’re likely to get too high if partner is minimum, but also not very keen to take my chances in 1NT at IMP scoring. Assuming that partner has no 4 card major, then we must have a minor suit fit, so should be safe to introduce C despite the fact that we only have 3. Seems to me that if we can make a game, the most likely reason is that we hit a big C fit, with partner having 5 or 6 C.
Jill Feldman: 2C - Worried about the H, partner is marked now with C and D, so I think I would rather play in a minor suit contract. (At pairs I might pass and take my chances!)
Gail Hoffman: 2C - partner does not have the majors.
Peter Crouch: 2C, not enough for 2S and 2D may fetch a 3316 hand opposite. Partner has 4C (or possibly 4D) so this is not as dangerous as it looks.
Jeremy Dhondy: 2C - Continuing the theme of bidding suits I haven't got. If I pass we could play 1NT with 5C or 5D cold. I don't think I am good enough to bid 2S.
Thanasis Argiropoulos: 2C - East is marked with minor suit holdings, probably 3D and 5C. 2C is a value-describing bid which put partner into the picture. The downside with that is that the opposition is known to have a massive H fit. Bidding 2C is an open invitation for the opponents to softly balance and discover that after all the hand could be theirs. The counter-argument to that is that expert opposition might balance anyway (although it would be more difficult over 1NT-P-P-?. This is a difficult hand where West cannot know the right level of contract or whose hand is it after all.

The master of the VCBs shocks us all with an attempt to be “down the line”! Note he is alone with his choice however.

John Vos: Pass - I could be clever and bid 2C. Fairly sure that a “charismatic” [sic] director I know would bid 2C. The danger of this is twofold (a) hitting partner with a hand where he now raises via 2NT with a 4-card C suit possibly going minus or (b) leaving the room open for opponents to compete in their 9+ H fit. As this is imps if I’m going 3 down in 1NT you can be sure they’re making 140 and I’m hoping to make +90 vs –140

Overbidding somewhat and simultaneously not really stressing the salient features (potential C fit no chance in S) ...

Catherine Seale: 2S - Partner has denied 4S so this is forcing. At the very least showing values in S and doubt about final contract. Hearing 3C from partner would be good.
Uriah Jacobson: 2S - Pard has denied a 4-card major and has not supported D ( the system notes do not say that inverted minor raises are used ), therefore he should hold a minimum of 5C and insufficient strength to bid 2C. However even if pard only has Axxxxx and Ax (or K)x in S, 5C has play. I am slightly under strength for the reverse, but it allows pard to define his hand via Lebensohl.
Neill Harcus: 2S - At IMPs we want to reach game. Give partner Axxx or better C and we can already see 9-tricks. Partner can always bail out in C or D at the 3-level.

A clear-cut mis-bid in my view:

Peter Kaufmann: 2NT - Partner will have minor suit values and not more than 3H. If he has long C he can bid 3C over 2NT and 5C may be the only making game. My C holding will be very good in either 3NT or 5C.

Tactical bidding which has much to commend it in terms of suit concentration etc. It loses the possibility of 5C however and probably invites the opponents in to find their 9 or 10 card H fit a little more easily than some of our other selections.........

Steve Capal: 2D - ok this is the one!!!! yuk yuk!!! as partner has denied H here I think it is a border-line 2D bid. Yes I prefer 6 of them but a good quality 5- card suit and probably no chance of game...says I !!!!
Anne Rosen: 2D - I know partners 1NT is 6-9 so conceivably we could have 25 hcps but if partner has a 5 card suit it’s in C and with 9 hcps and 5C he would strain to bid 2C in this position – so he won’t have this. If this was pairs I would probably pass 1NT, but as it’s not, it looks to me that if partners got something like AS and Qxx in H then even 1NT may not be a great contract but I will almost certainly make 2D, so I’m going to play for my plus score as I don’t think we’ve got a game on.

Hand 7: EW Game, Dealer East, Pairs
ª KQ © AK ¨ 753 § KQ10864	W - 2§ ?	N - 2¨	E P 2©	S 1¨ 2ª

Marking: 3D=10, 4H=8, 3H=6, X=3, 3S=2

Another problem with a whole gamut of answers. The crux appears to be how seriously to take East’s 2H entry into the auction. I am a believer that at low levels you should often strain to get in – so the classic full 10 hcps etc. should be taken with a pinch of salt. Thus not all our panellists believe we should just shut our eyes and bid game.

Peter Crouch: 3D, double if competitive is acceptable but South has an easy psyche of 2S here and double should be penalties. Partner could have a number of hands, 4-6 Majors, 6H and not suitable for a weak 2 at the vul, or 5H and at least a partial club fit. Will trust partner and pass 3H.
Catherine Seale: 3D - I think this is the hardest hand of the set and am really not sure about this. 3C is too tame, 3H loses the possibility of game and I don't think 2NT is an option. Could partner have a flawed weak two here? When I'm in this much doubt I'll just hand over the pressure to partner.
Jill Feldman: 3D - Think my H holding is good enough to support, so let partner decide whether to bid 3 or 4.

I don’t think 3D actually guarantees H support Jill – just shows a good hand.

Jeremy Dhondy: 3D - Likely that when partner bids 2H he has something in C. Game could easily be on here.
Peter Kaufmann: 3D - Partner will have C tolerance for his bid. there's just room for KD, AC and QH so 3NT will make otherwise we can play happily in 4 or 5C
Steve Capal: 3D - I think 3D is correct here...need more info and 3NT may well be the only resting place or possibly 4H !!
Uriah Jacobson: 3D - South probably has a 6D,5S shape with the AS. North surely has only 4 or 5 hcps with 3 or 4D & pard should hold about 7 hcps with probably 6+ H and a singleton or void in D ( with 5H & 4+S he would probably double. ) If pard also holds Axxx or AJx in C, slam could be on, if he has a void in D - but bad breaks are likely. I would really like to pass in order to see North’s response, but I lack the courage.

Bidding what I would have answered at the table I must confess – since we have so much it seems impossible partner will be able to co-operate in any sensible way at all ...

Jeff Alper: 4H -I expect partner to have 6 H and short D.
David Bakhshi: 4H - Why didn’t partner open 2H? Is it because he has long S, only 5H, or is her suit too bad for a vulnerable pre-empt? Tempting to Double to try and make a flexible call, allowing partner to get more involved, or even to bid 3D/S to suggest a good raise in case the opponents bid 4S/5D, but am concerned that leaving them too much room might actually help them work out to save. Seems to me that given the opponents activity partner is likely to have only one D, and either H QJxxx with a partial C fit, or a hand with S length. Either way, unlikely that partner will accept an invitation, even though 4H will probably make more often than not.
Anne Rosen: 4H - This could be a bit of a manic overbid opposite a passed hand, but so what. There is a lot of bidding going on so it’s hard to tell who’s actually got values, but I think the most likely scenario is that partner has an upper end weak 2 in H which he did not open probably because he’s flawed and also holds 4 S. North who bid 2D may have absolutely nothing, but at least my partner shouldn’t have more than 2D, maybe only one on a good day, in which case all of my honour cards are working.

The middle route (lets face it though – a bit of a cop-out route since partner will surely never ever raise):

John Vos: 3H - We have weak twos available so partner’s initial pass restricts their hand. Given that I am looking at the AK in partner’s suit I would assume their H holding to be QJ10xxx. I would also expect some C tolerance for the bid or an extra H. This is the only hand where I’m tempted to throw in a VCB but on balance 3H.
Gail Hoffman: 3H - partners H are likely to be 6 and I have 2 good ones.

Double appears to be a reasonable alternative – provided partner is on the same wave-length of course. If not a disaster could ensue!

Neill Harcus: Double - Partner would have doubled 2D with S as well and failed to open a weak 2 so he's bid a vulnerable 2H on a likely 5-card suit missing AK and at most 2 D. Double is take-out/good hand. I'm not sure where we're going (4H and 3NT are still possible) though there may not be enough tricks for game.

Hand 8: Love All, Dealer North, IMPs
ª J98 © J974 ¨ 9 § AK763	W - ?	N 1ª	E X	S 3ª

Marking: X=10, 4H=8, 4C=6, Pass=3

Pretty close to being a 2-horse race this one. I both play and teach that up to the 2-level a responsive double tends to deny the unbid major. But at the 3-level or above you must have some more flexibility. As such there is no need to commit absolutely to H at this stage. Without this agreement I guess most just chanced their arm with 4H and hoped to emerge unscathed.

David Bakhshi: Double - While 4C, 4H and 5C could all be winning actions, it feels like a responsive double is the most flexible call. One advantage is that it allows partner to pass when they are going down while we have no game, or even to bid 3NT if he has a good hand without 4H. If partner bids 4D, can then bid 4H which should offer a choice of 4H and 5C. If partner bids 4C, can either pass or bid 4H, which I think should still sound like a choice between 4H and 5C, as we could bid 4D with both red suits.
Peter Kaufmann: Double. Not sure where we’re going, will bid 5C over 4D
Steve Capal: Double - I make a responsive double.

Peter Crouch puts the case well:

Peter Crouch: Double, or 4H with some partners depending on style. The problem with 4H is the potential 4-3 fit. The problem with double is the next hand may pass and partner will not know what to do with a good hand with say 1453, he may think 4D is not enough and 4H is not this hand type (hand too strong to overcall 2H?). A good hand for agreements, I prefer double to deny 4H or show 4H and a longer minor.
Jeremy Dhondy: Double - I don't subscribe to the theory that double denies or promises 4 cards in the other major. It is just a hand where we don't know what to do. 4C is too unilateral and may well lead to missing 4H. If partner bids 4D over the double I will bid 4H. Double also keeps 3NT in the game

I nearly liked this next answer until I saw the comment about 3NT not being natural!!! Honestly Uriah words (nearly) fail me.

Uriah Jacobson: Double -Responsive, showing two places to play, including H. I give up on 3NT being natural here, so 3NT would show both minors.

A good number of you were prepared to risk the Moysian fit with such a poor H suit ...

Jeff Alper: 4H -If opponents compete to 4S I will bid my clubs.
John Vos: 4H - Partner may be sitting there with a D powerhouse in which case will likely remove to 5D and my hand will still have play. Changed my mind- double as I only have four H. I could also bid 4C and then 4H over 4D. No I’ll stay with 4H. [Those men in white coats, are they coming for me? Surely not all my bids were bonkers?]
Catherine Seale: 4H - After No.7 I've been looking to see why I answered this so easily.... I'm sure Neil will have a very good reason for this being wrong but it is what I would have bid at the table without one of my long pauses.
Jill Feldman: 4H - I prefer to bid my 4 card major. (I might be able to show my C later).
Gail Hoffman: 4H - When partner doubles there is likely to be 4H in his hand
Neill Harcus: 4H - Partner may not have 4-card H suit but probably has a singleton S so we should be ok.
Anne Rosen: 4H - I think double here would deny 4H, and 4H is pretty clear cut. We know from the 3S jump that the opposition have at least 8S (probably 9) so as partner has only 2 or (1) S, 4H should be a good proposition.

Results	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Score
Jeremy Dhondy	4H	Pass	2NT	3D	2D	2C	3D	X	77
Peter Crouch	4NT	Pass	2NT	3D	2H	2C	3D	X	76
David Bakhshi	4NT	Pass	3C	3D	2H	2C	4H	X	73
Thanasis Argiropoulos	3NT	Pass	2NT	3D	2H	2C	3H	5H	71
Jill Feldman	4S	2S	3C	3NT	3NT	2C	3D	4H	67
Anne Rosen	3NT	Pass	2NT	3D	2H	2D	4H	4H	67
Gail Hoffman	4S	Pass	3C	3NT	3NT	2C	3H	4H	66
John Vos	4H	2S	3C	3D	2H	Pass	3H	4H	65
Steve Capal	4S	Pass	3C	3C	4C	2D	3D	X	61
Uriah Jacobson	4H	2H	2NT	3NT	2D	2S	3D	X	61
Peter Kaufmann	4H	Pass	2NT	3NT	3D	2NT	3D	X	61
Catherine Seale	4H	Pass	3H	3H	2D	2S	3D	4H	60
Jeffrey Alper	4S	Pass	3H	3C	3NT	2C	4H	4H	58
Neill Harcus	4H	2S	3H	3H	2H	2S	X	4H	53

CONGRATULATIONS go to our leading panellist this time around, Jeremy Dhondy, closely followed by our newest contributor, my regular partner Peter Crouch.

Prize-winning answer from our club members was received from:

STEVE ROOT with 68 marks

Runner-up: Simon Mostyn with 64 marks.