Bidding Panel - Answers, November 2004 - Marked by Anne Rosen

Marking: 3S=10, 3C=9, 2S=5, 2H=1

Not an easy one to start with, as shown by the divergence of votes by the panel. The three main options appear to be 3S, 3C and 2S, but none of these is perfect. Do you bid (a) 3C FSF which is a bit of an overbid, or (b) 3S which should be invitational with 6 decent spades – but your spades aren’t really up to it, or (c) 2S which in my opinion isn’t this hand at all. The majority of the panel went for 3S:

Jill Feldman: 3S showing an invitational hand with six spades.
Jeff Alper: 3S A slight overbid but I am too good for 2S.
Neill Harcus: 3S. May be IMPs but I won't game force here. Partner will bid game with spades or a bit extra.
Peter Kaufmann: 3S
Gail Hoffman: 3S to show the 6th spade and a delayed game raise (DGR ? this isn’t forcing in my book)

Opting for the slight overbid in the hope of playing in something other than spades when it’s right....

David Bakhshi: 3C. The form of scoring (IMPs) tempts me into making the overbid of 3C. Prepared to risk getting too high, in order to ensure we end up in the best strain for our side. Prefer 3C to 3S, which I think will often give partner a tough choice whether to raise to 4S or bid 3NT, as she’ll tend to expect our spade suit to be more robust.
Steve Capal: 3C. I know most of the panel will bid three spades on this to show 11-12 points and a six card spade suit but I think the hand has too many controls and I would opt to bid 3C (4th suit forcing) and await developments.
Neil Rosen: 3C. Very good cards suggest that I should overbid slightly at this stage in order to reach the right strain. The main-line alternatives appear to be either 3H or 3S. 3H is right on values but owes partner a heart. 3S is right both in terms of point count and spade length however the poorly textured suit should lead to caution. I would expect a majority of our panel to plump for 3S however I believe 3C to be more flexible.

Opting for a more conservative approach ...

Jeremy Dhondy: 2S. Nothing is very attractive here. The spades are not good enough for 3S and 2S could sentence us to the wrong strain but it is the least of the evils.

An interesting point, is 2S ongoing here? Not for me. One approach to these sequences is that when partner has asked you for preference you are mandated to give it except when you have a longer suit of your own and a poor hand. If in this auction partner had rebid his hearts and you had then repeated spades, I would have agreed with you, this would have been constructive and ongoing. But here, no.

Catherine Seale: 2S. According to Steve Capal I will almost certainly be going against Acol bidders who will bid 3S so will score poorly on this hand. Still, I think 2S is ongoing, not weak. 4th suit is an option but partner is likely to bid 3NT on Kxx. While this hand is great for suit play with 3 controls not necessarily good for NT.
 
In a world of his own ...

Uriah Jacobson: 2H. I know we have a 7+ H fit - I don’t know about any Spade fit. (You are too good for this bid and it does not describe your hand)

Marking: 3NT=10, 3H=9, 4D=3, 4NT=2

The panel was equally spilt with 5 votes each for 3NT and 3H. The trouble with bidding 3NT is that partner could have a lot of hands on this bidding where 6D is cold. In an ideal world it would be nice to bid 3H, get 3S from partner and then bid 3NT – hence showing a hand that was too good to bid 3NT the round before, but how many times have you done this and found partner rebidding their 7 card diamond suit and the best contract disappearing from sight. So I suppose on balance I’ll go with 3NT.

Neil Rosen: 3NT. Just a bit of a guess really as partner has a relatively wide range. I play that bidding 3H here would ask for a stopper as opposed to showing one and thus implying doubt about the spade suit. It would be nice to be able to bid 3H to show a heart stopper on this specific hand but that would lead to too many problems on many other auctions. Sure slam could well be in the picture but I see absolutely no practical way to explore with any confidence/certainty.
Jeff Alper: 3NT. I expect partner to hold something in spades.
Jeremy Dhondy: 3NT. Balanced hand, couple of heart stops. what else do you want?
Neill Harcus: 3NT. May be slam potential but 3N still looks right most of the time.
Gail Hoffman: 3NT. partner must have something in spades since I have 4 points in his suit.

The other top choice not ruling out a slam ...

David Bakhshi: 3H. Feels like a choice between 3H and 3NT. Is 3C Game Forcing?  (I believe so) It’s hard to imagine bidding 3C, then passing a 3D rebid, so believe that partner can still have a pretty decent hand. Reluctant to just bid 3NT, as we’ll make slam facing as little as Axx, xx, AQxxxx, Qx. Would bid 3H, then follow with 3NT over 3S.
Jill Feldman: 3H. This hand only needs a 10 count and 6 diamonds from partner to make 6D but at pairs 6NT might be the better contract. Let's wait and see!
Catherine Seale: 3H. 3C is not a game-force in a competitive auction so want to make a second force. Whatever partner bids will make a slam try to hear if partner can make a cue bid in spades before making decisions as to level and whether to play in a minor suit or NT.
Peter Kaufmann: 3H
Uriah Jacobson: 3H. A diamond slam is not out of the question, so I don’t want to bid 3NT, even though pard is sure to have spades stopped.

And finally, making a unilateral diamond slam try ...

Steve Capal: 4D. I like my diamond holding and I would like to protect any spade holding that my partner may hold and I would choose 4D and hopefully start a cue bidding sequence.

Marking: 1NT=10, X=9, 2C=7, P=2

A very close call between three possible options, the panels top choice was 1NT but no one was really happy with it. Others went for X (which would get my vote) and 2C.
Steve Capal: 1NT. I am sure that this must be a trick hand if everyone doesn’t bid 1 NT on this hand I am going to give this game up. (it’s decision time then)
Neill Harcus: 1NT. Rejected double - not good enough to double and bid my own suit (true) and if partner bids hearts or diamonds what then?  (well you would pass, who knows it might be an 8 card fit!) Decided not to bid 2C and double if opportunity arises, though that's my second choice.
Gail Hoffman: 1NT. Not the best but did not fancy 2C or double
Jeff Alper: 1NT. Not ideal but I do have the required 15/17 pts
Catherine Seale: 1NT. Can’t see any reason to change the bid because partner has passed. Allows partner to transfer with 5 hearts. I suppose there could be a danger in being doubled but would then run to clubs.

After deep thought two of our elder statesmen

Neil Rosen: X. Pass, 1NT and 2C are other options (in that order?). I am just too good to pass whilst 2C shows a completely different hand type for me; more of a single-suited hand with a better club suit. 1NT is flawed since a) minimum point count, b) single spade stopper and c) anti-positional spade stopper. Double seems to cater for most options.
Jeremy Dhondy: X. I suppose you could bid 2C but the clubs aren't that great and there are only five of them and you have support for the other suits so it is the best description.

Also arguing their case well for 2C...

Uriah Jacobson: 2C. As I am going to protect if they bid 2S, I may as well show my best suit first.
Jill Feldman: 2C. Toss up between 1NT and 2C but game is unlikely facing a passed partner so I think I'll get my suit in now.
David Bakhshi: 2C. 1NT, 2C and Double are the obvious candidates this time. Would prefer to have 4H to Double, which feels like an action which will often lead to the wrong strain. Not keen to bid 1NT with our less than ideal spade holding, as NT will often play better from partner’s hand (e.g S Qxx). Prefer 2C for the lead-directional value. Not too worried about missing game, as playing IMPs, partner should strain to act more often with marginal values than she would at matchpoints (true).

Not arguing his case and not chosen by anyone else a decidedly cautious Mr Kaufmann !!! I do not believe he would do this at the table.

Peter Kaufmann: P

Marking: X=10, 5C=6, 4NT=5, 4H=3

Majority consensus at last. 9 of the 11 panellist went for X keeping both majors in the game and being prepared to make a slam try the next round opposite a 4H or 4S response.

Jeff Alper: X. Beware bad breaks but a slam looks a definite possibility
Neil Rosen: X. Providing we can get past this round we should be well placed! 4H is too unilateral and 5C would agree diamonds – hence we have no real alternative. This hand is a real advertisement to play negative-style doubles to at least 4S and not just 3S as many of our club members play.
Peter Kaufmann: X.
Jill Feldman: X and bid keycard to any response from partner. Partner can't?! have a penalty pass
Gail Hoffman: X. Anything could be right but after lots of thought a negative double, definitely on going and showing majors
Jeremy Dhondy: X. I will then remove 4D to 4H which I think shows a better hand than bidding 4H direct.
David Bakhshi: X. 4H feels wrong on 2 counts. Firstly, our hand has too much slam potential, and secondly, we may belong in spades. Therefore, I would Double. Suspect that many experienced players often tend to convert high-level take-out Doubles through a feeling that there is no clear positive action to take, but prefer to place the emphasis on bidding to find our best strain and would only expect partner to pass if she viewed that it was the way to achieve our biggest plus score rather than an uncertainty as to her best bid. Am intending to bid 4H over 4D, and 4NT over 4H/S. A good way to continue.
Uriah Jacobson: X. For T/O must be more flexible than any other bid.
Steve Capal: X. This looks like a very good use of the negative double prepared to bid 4 hearts if partner re-bids his diamond suit. If we bid 4H immediately the auction may very well die and miss the possibility of a slam.

Two of the panellists preferred to make an out-and-out slam try by bidding 5C, this seems dangerous as partner may think you have better diamond and you’ll never get your 10 major suit cards into the game.

Catherine Seale: 5C. If partner bids 5D will probably try 5H as I want to make a slam try.
Neill Harcus: 5C. X is too risky - the reward might be too small when a slam is available.

Marking: 2S=10, 3NT=7, 3D=1

The problem with this hand is that there are three possibly playable denominations H, S and NT and at this stage of the auction if you jump to a game contract you are just guessing. Six of the panellists went for 2S, which should be natural, but not always for these reasons.

Uriah Jacobson: 2S. OK, so pard is minimum and might well have only 3 Hearts; 2S keeps your options open for 3NT/ 4H or even 4S.
Jeremy Dhondy: 2S. I don't know what the system is here. Some play that any bid other than NT shows 5+ hearts but I think that is too inflexible. It helps if you have some method here and 2S can be a naturalish enquiry asking partner to describe his shape further. 3H is also a possible alternative. It is not sensible to play it as pre-emptive here, in my view so there is a case for it being game forcing with 4H. Partner will now bid 3NT with a 3 card raise and something else(cue or game) with a four card raise. Yes we have now transferred the menace and given partner the opportunity to do the right thing, if only...
David Bakhshi: 2S. Very awkward situation, as partner may only have 3H, which could still make 3NT or 4S the best game, though the latter probably depends on partner’s style when 4315. Common practice is to raise immediately with a minimum hand, and play that bidding 1S, then supporting Hearts shows extra values. Assuming this is our style, would bid 2S (even though it sounds like we have 5H), as I’m prepared to risk playing a 4-3 Heart fit if partner is 1345, or 6C-3H and jumps to 4H, as there should be some security in the form of scoring, knowing that we don’t have to worry about the matchpoint issue of playing 3NT vs 4M.
Neil Rosen: 2S. I feel quite strongly about this hand. Normally when a partnership bids and supports a major, bidding a new suit guarantees five of the agreed major. However on this particular auction this should not be the case as I believe opener with a 4315 distribution should be happy to raise 1H to 2H with three card support as opposed to being compelled to bidding their spade suit. Thus responder must now be able to introduce a four card spade suit to explore the correct contract. (So what you’re saying is as opener with 4315 and weak hands you would raise partners major suit H response with a 3 card support, but with better hands you would be prepared to bid 1S over 1H and then show your 3 card heart fit next round if the development of the auction allowed this – many players adopt this treatment, which seems reasonable to me).

Anyone bidding 4H is really failing to appreciate that opener may only in fact have three card support with a ruffing value. Bidding 3NT appreciates the possible three card heart support but does not explore the possible 4 - 4 spade fit in any way.
Catherine Seale: 2S. At least a game try. Partner may have only 3 hearts. (excuse-moi, 4 card major style so the 2H bid definitely shows 3+ hearts, why would partner raise a 4 card suit on 2.)
Gail Hoffman: 2S as a long suit trial bid I do not intend to stop below game but there might be a slam on this hand.

Jill Feldman: 3NT. Unless partner has a 3316 shape they must be limited to 15 points so I can't see any more than game. Let partner decide which one. This will probably end the auction if partner only has 3 hearts and you might miss a 4-4 spade fit.
Jeff Alper: 3NT. Practical bid.
Neill Harcus: 3NT. Partner can convert with 4-card support.
Steve Capal: 3NT As partner may only have 3 card heart support here I think 3NT seems like a sensible bid.

Peter Kaufmann: 3D. I don’t know what this achieves. Partner may not have spade values and might feel a bit stuck with only a 3 card heart suit.

Marking: P=10, 2NT=8, 3C=7

I wondered if the panel would think it was worth bidding 2NT or even 3C here but perhaps it is a more interesting decision at pairs. As it was almost the whole panel passed which seems sound and solid and probably even sensible with the Heart cards likely to be sitting over you.

Neil Rosen: Pass Not even close here. I predict a unanimous panel (famous last words.......)
Uriah Jacobson: Pass. Modern-style, the X usually denies 5 Spades; Pard heard my 1NT, so where can I go?
Catherine Seale: Pass. I’ve shown hand already.
Peter Kaufmann: Pass
Jeremy Dhondy: Pass. Hard to think of an alternative (usually a preface to being in a minority of one)
Neill Harcus: Pass. Not a lot to say
Gail Hoffman: Pass. I said my bit and do not feel strong enough for a penalty double
Steve Capal: Pass. Playing imps I am happy to let this contract pass out
Jill Feldman: Pass

Jeff Alper: 2NT. Just about worth it.
David Bakhshi: 2NT. A problem that would be even more interesting at matchpoints. Think that 2H is likely to make more often than not, so seems right to bid (especially at Love All – the bidder’s vulnerability). Choosing between 2S, 2NT and 3C. Feels like it ought to be better to try for an 8 trick contract, especially as there’s no guarantee of a club fit. My first instinct was to bid 2S, but it’s easy to imagine problems if spades are 4-2 as we are likely to lose at least 2S, 2H, and a couple of minor suit tricks. Prefer to try 2NT, which requires same number of tricks, and has the advantage that our Hearts are likely to be worth at least 1 trick more than if Spades are trumps.

Marking: X=10, 2H=9, 2NT=7, 4S=5, 2S=1

Partner, the 1S bidder, is a passed hand here, so you may not be making game. Two bids; double and 2H both received four votes. I marginally prefer X because it gives you the option of taking a penalty if partner is suitable and you can support spades strongly next round.

Steve Capal: X. Although partner is a passed hand I opt for a penalty double and now just have to ponder the right lead to get into my partner’s hand to play the spade through. But the auction may well not finish here ...
Peter Kaufmann: X
Neil Rosen: X. I held this actual hand playing with Anne but it has mysteriously changed from its original teams scoring (all vulnerable). The two main choices are clearly double and 2H – UCB. In view of partner’s original pass I felt that a penalty double to be followed by vigorously supporting spades, to an appropriate level – given the opportunity - would allow for the best chance for us to extract a penalty on a likely part-score deal.
Jeff Alper: X. As partner is a passed hand I don’t expect game to be on. I prefer to take the money.

Jeremy Dhondy: 2NT. Showing a serious 4 card raise in spades. If East is telling the truth then my cards are worth a fair bit and even opposite a protecting partner I am worth a try. This is not part of the standard system, but if this was what you were playing it would be a good thing to do, it often makes a lot of difference to know partner has a 4 card fit with you in evaluating what level to play at.

David Bakhshi: 2H. Tempting to just bid 4S, even though partner is a passed hand, as potential D and S finesses are likely to work. Game probably depends on the number of H and D that partner holds. Would start with 2H, and if partner bids 2S, follow with 3D. If partner can make a ‘last train’ 3H bid will bid 4S. Will pass if she can only bid 3S. (Would like to be able to bid 2NT to show a 4+ card raise straight away, as I could in my most regular partnerships).
Gail Hoffman: 2H to show a good raise in spades and on going
Neill Harcus: UCB
Uriah Jacobson: 2H. So I’ve got 13 HCP! The most I’m prepared to do is show a good raise and see if pard, who may have only 8-9 HCP, is interested

Catherine Seale: 4S - I think this is the most difficult hand of the set. 2H was my first choice but the more I look at this hand the more I think this could be natural. (You show hearts by doubling, having passed the first time.) There are lots of really weak hands that partner could hold where 4S is a make i.e. Jxxxxx,x,J10x KQx. Everything seems to be working and without the 4H bid I’ll have a shot. Yes, but on most of these partner should have systemically opened something, so do you really think making game is the most likely scenario ...
Jill Feldman: 2S (eventually). Was going to double, but they might just get 7 tricks and 1 off only gives us +100. I think we can make 2S for +110. Undervaluation me thinks

Marking: 5H=10, X=7, P=4, 5S=1

The top choice here was 5H, recognising that partner had made a vulnerable 2 level overcall and on the bidding short spades. Also it’s pairs so if 4H is making, +100 or +300 may not be much good to you and 5H might be you’re only chance of a winning option.

Neill Harcus: 5H hoping it'll make (as opposed to a sacrifice). Partner's done a vulnerable 2-level overcall. Would prefer a singleton somewhere.
David Bakhshi: 5H. As usual, I’m reluctant to Pass! At IMPs, would be more tempted to just take the money from 4S, but concerned that at matchpoints +100 or +300 will not score significantly better than -100 (should 5H fail). Seems that 5H is likely to have some play, though could turn out to be a good ‘red’ save if both sides have a double fit. Would like to make an ‘action’ double of 4S to suggest extra offence, and invite partner to bid on if she had a hand that was close to bidding 5H herself. An Action Double might be the best of all worlds, but it would be very infuriating to have a good hand to take a penalty and have partner pull it!
Jill Feldman: 5H. Although it looks like they are sacrificing at green, I'm not sure that it is going down. I think we can make 5H as I've got no wasted values, partner has overcalled at the 2 level at red, so has points and a singleton spade at most. Suppose I could bid 5C on the way.
Catherine Seale: 5H. And pray ... Partner is marked with Spade shortage and for his vulnerable overcall must have honours in at least one of the minor suits. This hand also has two controls and possibly only one defensive trick. True, if one of the opponents is void in Hearts we may not beat 4 Spades...
Jeff Alper: 5H. I know we are vulnerable but as partner has overcalled at the two level I expect the contract to have a play. It certainly should do
Neil Rosen: 5H Is partner’s pass forcing?  I don’t play it as such even at this vulnerability since we did not have the opportunity to express game-going values. However I am sure that partner has one spade at most – therefore I am going to bid 5H for two reasons: a) it could be a double game-swing hand with both 4S and 5H being cold and b) even if it is “our” hand I doubt very much that we will be getting rich from 4S.
Gail Hoffman: 5H Double might be better but partner has to be short in spades and has values outside and we are vulnerable
Uriah Jacobson: X. I don’t like abstaining though I think this problem depends on style: if I could have bid 3NT to show a 4H bid with good defensive values, pard might have been able to double or make a forcing pass and we could make a more informed decision. As it is, I am guessing, so I guess to DOUBLE.
Jeremy Dhondy: X. I can believe 5H is making but I am flat and have a couple of aces so will go for the plus score (you hope, if the Aces are both cashing).
Steve Capal: Pass. Oh dear! 3 obvious choices here and as usual Steve would choose the one that gets no points and would elect to select the pass card OUCH!! (Timid)
Peter Kaufmann: 5S. (This seems to commit you to slam and most of the above are not sure about making at the 5 level).

Many congratulations go to Gail Hoffman, who recorded 79 out of 80 which is an excellent result and I think the highest score so far.... You’ll have to try harder next time boys.

Further congratulations to Julian Robbins who was the highest scoring of the club members who submitted an entry with a very respectable 70!