Bidding Panel - Answers July 2004 - Marked by Neil Rosen

Marking: 3H =10; 4D=5; 5D=3

Let’s start with a few words from one of our guest panellists: Noorul Malik. Before I bore you all with my analysis I would like to thank the Ace of Clubs team for giving me this opportunity. I would also like to thank Neil Rosen for making me the bridge player I am today. (?!NR) No doubt he is the best bridge teacher in the bridge world”.

Thanks for those kind words Noorul, now let’s begin!
We saw a clear consensus here for the 3H bid. The panel (and me for that matter) dismiss the idea that 3H should in some fashion be stronger than 4H, via the fast arrival principle and give some good reasons as to why the bid is the most flexible.

David Bakhshi: 3H, I like to make the bid which gives partner maximum room for further description when she sets up a game-force. Especially important when she jumps in a new suit, as she may have to bid a 3 card D suit with a hand too good to simply rebid 3H. Bidding 3H also allows partner room to show 3 card support for S. Not keen to support D when 3N or 4M are still in the frame.
Noorul Malik: 3H, Partner rebid 3D which is game forcing (new suit at 3 level is always forcing to game) so what possible options do I have? a) to repeat my spades but won’t because it shows a 6 card suit. b) to support partner's diamonds, beware this might be only a 3-card suit because partner can’t rebid his own suit or support my suit in a forcing manor so he/she has to find a forcing bid which will be in minor, so I can’t raise to 4D. c) 3NT- I don’t have a stopper in unbid (clubs) suit and I am not strong enough (5hcp) with soft values ; 2 Jacks for this action. d) 3H is my choice it will give partner a chance to decide the final contract and show my minimum support.
Anne Rosen : 3H. Partners 3D is a GF jump - not a reverse - so I’m not about to pass. Don’t fancy bidding 3NT with out a club stop. Equally, I would have freely raised hearts the first time with 3 card support. So I’m fairly happy to bid 3H here and wait and see.
Jill Feldman : 3H - now regretting I responded! Ok, partner has game forced, can't pass as much as I'd like to. 5D (fast arrival) springs to mind BUT partner may only have a 3 card suit.
Peter Crouch : 3H Just waiting to hear why partner forced to game. Passing is not an option as it will destroy future confidence and playing 3D opposite AQx / AKxxxx / AQx / x does not appeal.
Jeremy Dhondy : 3H. If I pass partner will not trust me again until about 2008. I think 11 tricks will be quite hard on this hand so I propose to give partner the chance to play in 4H.
Catherine Domenico: 3H - Don’t think this necessarily shows additional values and could be bid on a forced preference. Allows room to find the optimum contract as partner can still show something in spades, bid NT or repeat diamonds.
Neill Harcus : 3H. Partner has game forced. No need to rush to support diamonds (taking the auction past 3NT). 109 in partner's major is nothing to be ashamed of.

The following panellists seem happier to lock directly into D. Clearly this gives up on both S and No Trumps whilst allowing still for both 4H or 5D.

Jeff Alper : 4D Having scraped a response to partners opening bid I am happy to have found a fit.
Peter Kaufmann : 4D assuming 3D is not a splinter
Gail Hoffman : 4D since partner is a huge 2- suiter
Uriah Jacobson: 4D: I like to play 3D as a two-way bid, either a genuine high reverse or as S/A in spades with a shortage. In any event with 4 trumps you should raise diamonds. I don’t think that PFA applies here.

Unilateral – as ever!

Steve Capal: 5D - I believe this will end the auction after partner makes a GF while holding an awful hand. I am honest enough to have even considered a pass here at pairs and be prepared for the inquest later, at least we would definitely receive a plus score!!

As can be seen by the earlier comments this does not allow for any other denomination – worse still, partner may only have three diamonds on some occasions.

Marking: 3H=10; 2H=9; X= 7: 5D=6

I constructed this problem to see how weak a hand would be considered suitable by the panel for making a fit-showing jump and indeed to what extent fit-showing jumps were popular with our panellists.

Peter Kaufmann: 3H, fit jump. If I double what do I do over 4S from W?
Anne Rosen: 3H, fit Jump for D. I’m pretty sure I will want to be in at least game. But which one? 3H leaves space at the 4 level to investigate if a diamond slam is possible but also allows partner the chance of bidding 4H naturally if he wants.
Neill Harcus: 3H (fit-jump). A bit light, perhaps, but it shows a fifth heart and trump support. Double seems a bit feeble and there may not be another chance to get the hand across if West jumps in spades.
Jill Feldman: 3H, choice of 7 bids here for me (and I didn't even include 2S in that!) Fit jump is probably the most descriptive.
Noorul Malik: 3H, being a Rosenised Acol player and taught by the great man (Mr Neil Rosen) himself, a jump shift in competition is weak and shows 5-cards in the suit bid as well as at least 4 card support for partner’s suit. Perfect bid for this hand.

The following answers miss the point in my opinion – since over 3S or 4S I am sure these panellists would feel compelled to own up to some D support!

Catherine Domenico: 2H Lots of hands where game can make. So electing to upgrade this hand and make a forcing response.
Jeff Alper: 2H Although lacking points I have good shape and a fit so I will show my hearts.
Steve Capal: 2H For me!! Not in love with the bid but certainly have a tremendous back up in D for partner...feels right
Jeremy Dhondy: 2H You are not quite worth it but I don’t want to do miss the chance of making game in hearts. To double will suggest only four hearts and we will probably find it hard to play in hearts if we have a 5-3 fit.
Uriah Jacobson: 2H If forcing : I would prefer a better suit, but I am prepared to go to 4D at least. You little devil!

Understandable, though again not really getting the job done facing a potential spade barrage:

David Bakhshi: X Tough call! Obviously not strong enough to respond 2H, but keen to keep H in the frame. Though our S shortage makes it tempting to support S straight away, in case partner has an awkward decision over a raise from W, prefer to start with a negative double. If it turns out that partner can make a low level rebid will still be able to show D support. Am prepared to bid up to 5D myself if W raises and partner passes (partner very likely to have 5+ D given that we open 4M ahead of 4m).
Gail Hoffman: X, to show heart values and should EW come in with some level of spades I will then support diamonds to the 5 level.

Maverick – but to be fair this may well prove to be the winning action at the table.

Peter Crouch: 5D, Let the opponents make the next guess. No point looking for hearts as it is very likely that if partner has hearts with you the next bid will be 4S.

Marking: X=10; 2D=8; 1D=6

I probably set this problem with too many hcps. The intention was to test out 4th seat (protective) agreements. In particular weak jump overcalls should be replaced by intermediate jump overcalls. I personally recommend a range of 13 – 16 hcps for such an action and with a singleton HQ would not hesitate to describe my hand via a 2D bid. However the majority of panellists clearly feel this hand is out of range for an intermediate jump overcall.

Jeremy Dhondy: X, even if we play weak jump overcalls 2D would be intermediate and I think I am too good for that.
Peter Kaufmann: X, too good to bid 2D will rebid 1NT over 1H – Gross!, NR.
Gail Hoffman: X, since the hand is too good to do a 1 level bid
Steve Capal: X, here and after partner bids H ,we show our strength by bidding our D...may even reach 3NT on this deal.
Catherine Domenico: X, hope to hear H from partner then will look for NT. As we are in the protective seat - far too strong to make a simple overcall or intermediate jump.
Neill Harcus: X, have no strong bid in diamonds available yet and see no point in overcalling 2D which won't get us to game whereas X may find us a 5-3 spade fit. 3NT seems an alternative but very risky given the hole in the diamond suit and gap in hearts.
Anne Rosen: X, God knows? I don’t ! I’m sure 2D would be intermediate in 4th but what is intermediate? If the QH has no value then maybe this fits the bill. But if partner has H cards this may be a better hand. Rightly or wrongly I’m going to start with a double.

Prepared to back their (or my!) judgement.

Jill Feldman: 2D, intermediate in protective seat. I don't think doubling and then bidding diamonds over a heart response (1,2,3 or 4!!) can be right.
Noorul Malik: 2D, in protective seat as we always teach in our both clubs (Ace and Acol) borrow an Ace from partner’s hand and than decide whether to come in to the bidding or pass at 1-level. To jump in the suit shows a one-suited (6+ card) and good hand, you bid it all in one go and partner can take it from here.
Jeff Alper: 2D, I could X and if partner bids H bid NT but a singleton heart does not look attractive. I prefer an immediate jump to 2D which I play to describe this type of hand.
Uriah Jacobson: 2D:

I have to confess to being slightly amazed at the following offerings from two of our leading expert panellists.....

Peter Crouch: 1D, might bid 2N if shooting. For me overcalling 1D in direct seat or protective seat is little different.
David Bakhshi: 1D,Where have all the H gone? While it’s tempting to X, intending to rebid D, with such a promising hand in the protective position I would be very surprised if I’m left to play in 1D. Reluctant to be forced to introduce D at 3 or 4 level, so bid 1D now. Should be well placed as long as someone else takes another bid! Happy to X if opponents bid H, or make game try if partner supports D.

Marking: 4C=10; 3S=8; 3C=7; 3H=5; 2S=3

This was a tough problem I thought of the type encountered quite regularly at the table. The key thing is that partner’s negative double does not necessarily promise the same full values as for a two level response, therefore to bid a simple 3C will end the bidding far too often. Whether to show the prime club support or to stress those spades was the crux of this problem. I personally believe it is easier to get back to spades having bid 4C than it is to get back to clubs having started with 3S.

Peter Crouch: 4C, difficult problem especially if partner may just have diamonds. For me this is a good example of why you should play transfers by responder after a 2H overcall, at least opener knows you have some clubs. The problem with bidding 3H is that partner may bid 4D and now 4S would not promise clubs, you could have a very strong single-suiter.
Catherine Domenico: 4C, contract probably needs to be played by West’s hand to protect the KH. 3C wouldn’t show additional values. 4C seems to manage to do both at the cost of giving up on 3NT.
David Bakhshi: 4C, close call between 3S and 4C, which I prefer to the alternative of 3H. Prefer not to bid opponents’ suit unless I have no clear bid to make, or am too strong to make a natural descriptive call. Would be more tempted to bid 3S at pairs, but concerned that may lead to loss of a C fit. 4C however, should leave open the possibility of playing in 4S. Not worried about going past 3N, which looks unlikely to be the last making game contract. If partner raises to 5C think it’s unlikely that 4S would’ve been a better contract, and feel 6C rates to be the best slam if partner actually has a good hand too.
Neill Harcus: 4C, must be forcing as 3C isn't. Only alternative I can think of is 3S which gets strength and spade length across but not the tasty club fit.
Peter Kaufmann: 4C

I play 3S as highly invitational but not forcing. This is great but for the fact that partner will never be able to place you with such good clubs.

Jeremy Dhondy: 3S, I am a bit good for 3C and the decent spade suit will play well opposite quite a few singletons
Anne Rosen: 3S, Invitational for me. Not GF opposite a T/O X which does not show full 2 level values and about right here.

A staggering number of you settled for the pusillanimous 3C bid. Knowing most of you as I do I cannot believe you would risk missing a vulnerable game at IMPs scoring.

Steve Capal: 3C, hmmm typical of my dear pal Rosen to put this hand in. Pard may convert to D but then we can re-bid our super spade suit to show a good 6 card suit...
Noorul Malik: 3C, like to bid 3 and half clubs! The good news about this hand is 6-4 and holding Ace and Kings with no soft values, bad news is the King of Hearts because 2H was bid on your left so you should devalue the king so I will bid a quiet 3C.
Gail Hoffman: 3C, since this is an ongoing bid ...........oh no it isn’t!
Jeff Alper: 3C, partners negative X shows the other two suits and so I bid my clubs.
Uriah Jacobson: 3C, not quite good enough for 4C, which could stop you showing your 6th spade; also 3NT might still be in the picture as the final contract. If partner now bids 3H ( ? asking or ? showing ) I shall bid 4S
Jill Feldman: 3C, or repeat my nice 6 card suit? Might show it later if applicable. When Jill? Let partner know we have a fit. Let partner know we have little or no game ambition at the same time – that is the problem with a simple 3C bid.

Marking: 3H=10; 3C=9; 3D= 6; 3NT =4

For me the most interesting but technical hand of the set. I do not expect all the panellists or competitors to be fully cognisant of all auctions of this type. As such I expected many to bid 3D hoping it would be forcing! I was not disappointed!!! 3D is consistent with a 5–5 10/11 count – hardly this hand. Bidding 3H at least leaves room for alternative contracts; 4S on a 5–2 fit for example being highly desirable in some cases

Jeremy Dhondy: 3H, I know I want to play game but am not clear in what denomination. 3D would be weak and passable.
Neill Harcus: 3H, partner's non-forcing 2NT shows 11-ish points, a heart stop and a doubleton spade at best. 3NT only alternative bid but 3H gives partner a chance to re-evaluate his heart stop. 4 S or even 5 D could be the right game to play in.
Catherine Domenico: 3H, forcing, expressing doubt about the final contract – can’t possible be natural.
Peter Crouch: 3H now I can pass if partner bids 3N. Would prefer 3C if forcing but it isn’t.

I would very much like to give the following choice 11 out of 10 since to me it is clearly correct. It identifies a) the need to set up a force, b) more crucially hones in on short hearts - giving partner a far greater insight as to what may be a better contract e.g if partner has H Axx then the need to play either 4S or 5D (or even 5C on occasion) should become apparent. c) shows most usually 5143 or occasionally as here 5152.

David Bakhshi: 3C, choice this time seems to be between 3C and 3H. Too strong to bid 3D, which though it shows my 5th D, should also be NF. One is often expected to bid 3H, the 4th suit, on FG 5/5 hands, but concerned that 3H doesn’t leave much room for partner. Therefore prefer to bid 3C, which though more consistent with a 5143 hand has the advantage of highlighting my H shortage, and leaves room for partner to explore D or S contracts if 3N now looks unattractive.
Peter Kaufmann: 3C, 6 may be on if partner has say AQxxxx clubs and Axxx hearts. Having read this answer, I am glad this answer only received 9 marks after all!!

Missing the point completely and therefore potentially playing in a part score..............

Anne Rosen: 3D, forcing and patterning out. Seems like a good idea to bid 3D because if partner has a single heart stop or weak hearts, I might want to play in something other than NT, i.e. 4S opposite a doubleton spade or on other hands I might want to play 5D. Good analysis but wrong bid Mrs Rosen!
Noorul Malik: 3D, as our Doctor (Neil Rosen) always say in his own lovely way on the table "bid your ..?*!*?... hand". The obsession to play in NT has let so many minor suit slams go by. Having 5-5 will give partner a chance to make a further decision.
Uriah Jacobson: 3D, I would have bid 3C with another Club. If partner cannot find another bid, so be it; if he does, I am in a good position; I shall bid 4S over 3S, and 4C over 3H. Knows the bid is nf but still bids it.... the mind boggles!
Steve Capal: 3D, now surely this cannot score Neil oops nil!! I like to show my hand and with a fab club holding here we may even reach a making 6D here. I like to show my distribution on these hands - watch this guys a good score coming for me at last!!! Wrong again Steve – at least your consistency is good with these predictions!
Jill Feldman: 3D, how much information do I want to give the opponents? Could bid a 'lazy' 3NT, but I've been told too many times to 'bid my hand', so let's hope that 6D is lay-down and we get there!!!!

Slightly precipitate – seems to me they’re putting all their eggs in one basket

Gail Hoffman: 3NT, since there seems no point in showing the 5th diamond
Jeff Alper: 3NT, with my high cards in three suits partner should have good hearts. So I will raise to game.

Marking: 2NT=10; 4D=7; 4NT=4; 2C=3

More a test of methods than anything else. For any competitors reading please remember that we do include a summary of the system in use in the bidding panel section of the website. Some choose to play and/or teach Jacoby as 16+ hcps – not my choice, nor that of the following panellists..............

Peter Kaufmann: 2NT, Jacoby (if allowed) otherwise 4D splinter
Anne Rosen: 2NT, remembering the system hands with “big” splinters need to go through a game forcing raise, but this is what I would bid at the table anyway. With my shortage and concentration I want to agree trumps now as I may want to take control later in the auction.
Jill Feldman: 2NT, thank heavens for Jacoby, otherwise who knows?
Peter Crouch: 2NT, too good for a splinter 4D. If partner bids 4H you will not know what to do. e.g. Axx / Kxxxx / Kxx / Kx.
David Bakhshi: 2NT, only 3 realistic contenders this time, 4D, 4N and 2N. Don’t like 4D (Splinter) for 2 reasons. Tend not to have so many high cards to splinter rather than start with Jacoby 2N, and more importantly, feel it’s too likely that bidding 4D will leave partner in difficulty owing to the lack of room she has to co-operate. Quite like the thought of bidding 4N directly to leave the opponents guessing what to lead, but would tend to respond 2N, which seems the best constructive strategy to tell partner we have a game forcing raise, and allow maximum room to explore any slam potential. What about 2C or 3C David?
Noorul Malik: 2NT. There will be a divergence of opinion and different bids on this hand as far as I see it, but I have a brilliant hand with at least a 10-card fit.
Jeremy Dhondy: 2NT, I have a raise to game so I show it.
Neill Harcus: 2NT, Jacoby. Can see no sane alternative bid. Partner will define his hand
Catherine Domenico: 2NT, Jacoby. Intend to continue cue bidding to find out if partner has a spade control. Kxxx if he's got it.
Uriah Jacobson: 2NT, I am too good for a splinter, so the Jacoby-style 2NT for me.
Steve Capal: 2NT, good old Jacoby here. Far too good to splinter...awaiting partner's re-bid

On their own.......

Jeff Alper: 4D, a very good hand with even a grand slam a possibility. I will start with a splinter bid and continue with 5C if partner simply bids 4H
Gail Hoffman: 4D, a splinter en route to a possible slam

The problem with this choice is that a) it is very space consuming , b) it gives partner little/no room below game c) if partner now signed off with 4H we would feel honour bound to continue which could result in either getting too high or alternatively never having room to identify the critical spade control which would be necessary to make a slam.

Marking: 4D=10; 4H=9; 4C=5; 3NT=4

What on earth is going on here?! If partner’s bidding makes any sense at all he must be making a slam try. I would have expected most of the panellists to co-operate in some fashion. My personal choice would be 4H which I believe says everything; a) slam suitability b) extra values in the context of our minimum actions to date i.e both 2D and 2NT c) a terrific heart holding facing partner’s 3H cue bid d) simultaneously denying the CA. Stressing the diamonds seemed to be the most popular choice however. To some extent that seems to stem from a misconception as to the meaning of 3H – is it a cue bid or just a doubt showing manoeuvre?

Catherine Domenico: 4D, partner probably showing concern about the final contract. Therefore, KH not enough. An alternative is that partner is making an advanced cue bid but then diamonds would be trumps anyway. Clearly not sure that 3H is a slam try (still collecting 10 marks however...!)
Peter Kaufmann: 4D
Gail Hoffman: 4D a slam force why a force Gail, not just a try?
Anne Rosen: 4D, what’s going on? Partner could have passed 2NT, but did not. Most times with mediocre hands when I bid No Trumps partner would simply raise in NT. It seems to be that given 3H is GF, it is most likely to be some sort of slam try for D. As my hand is pretty good for the bidding so far I am happy to co-operate and it seems like a good time to let partner know I have reasonable diamonds with him, so I’m going to bid 4D.
Jill Feldman: 4D, might confuse partner with a 4C cue, but hopefully showing a bit extra by not jumping to 5D.
Peter Crouch: 4D if 3N was the right contract partner would have bid it over 2N. He might have AKxx/ xx / KJxxx / Qx or even Qx of hearts.
Jeff Alper: 4D, partner appears to have a shapely hand and I am happy to confirm the quality of my support

Thinking deeply................

David Bakhshi: 4H, another tough one to finish. Sounds like partner is 4351 or 4360. Again would be more attractive to settle for 3N at pairs, but prepared to make one move towards slam, expecting 5D to make enough of the time to justify my effort. Feel slam still in the frame despite my wasted C cards, as partner surely has a good hand to bid 3H rather than just raise to 3N. Expect partner will work out I rate to be 2245 or 1345 (would tend to open 1D with 4 D’s and 4 C, and failure to rebid NT suggests an unbalanced hand). Therefore, I think 4H ought to be a better co-operative move than 4C or 4D, suggesting a good contextual H holding, with no significant S values. Also, bidding 4C or 4D would mean I wouldn’t have a convenient way to continue if partner bid 4H. Hoping to find partner with something like AKxx, Axx, KJxxx, x
Noorul Malik: 4H, this is a tricky bidding sequence. One has to know what bids mean if you have agreed a major and then partner bids a minor. Is it a game try; some play long suit and others short suit game tries. If you agree a minor and then bid a major it show stoppers in that major and mostly looking for NT if partner has a stopper in the other major, so in this sequence; 3H has to be a cue bid, and so far I have shown a minimum hand by only rebidding 2D and 2NT over 2S, but in fact I have a much better hand, e.g. having no H losers, honours in partner’s suit so am feeling good and will bid an encouraging 4H.
Steve Capal: 4H!! this has now been a world record for me, I have agonised over this hand. West could not have bid any weaker here and has already showed a H stop for the NT bid so I believe the 3H bid is showing the HA so therefore I co-operate with 4H; worst way we play in 5D and as it is imps we don’t care too much!!

Thinking less deeply.....................

Uriah Jacobson: 4C, I was not sure what 3H meant. My 2D denied holding 4 spades, so 2S is either showing a stop or he has 5 spades; however the 3H bid denies the latter possibility, so he must be trying for a slam. As I have already limited my hand, I shall cue bid my 2nd round Club control.

A disappointing choice, particularly from NH as he had a perfect record until this hand!

Jeremy Dhondy: 3NT, the most likely game. I would have opened 1NT in the first place.
Neill Harcus: 3NT, 3H is 4SF - partner seems interested in going beyond 3NT. I'm not, unless partner can now shore up my lacklustre club suit.