Home Survey Subscribe Bidding Forum Australia-Wide Pairs Contact Us  

    
Your national bridge magazine
         FEBRUARY ISSUE OUT NOW -- SUBSCRIBE HERE
Readers' Bidding
Forum Answers
February 2019

Readers' Bidding Forum with Fraser Rew, February 2019

The following comments were received from the readers of Australia's national bridge magazine, Australian Bridge, and other bridge enthusiasts. The same problems are also discussed in the magazine, by an international panel of Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence, Bob Jones, Frank Stewart,
Eddie Kantar, and Zia Mahmood, as well as many top Australian players.

The moderators of this forum are Brad Coles, Nigel Kearney and Fraser Rew.
This month's moderator is Fraser Rew.

Click here to submit        
answers for April          

                Scroll down to see final scores
 
Hand One - East deals, NS vul, Matchpoints. You are South.
 
images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) AJ9
images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) K
images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) KT7532
images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) J64

 
West North East South
    3images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) pass
pass 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) pass ?

 

Call Award %
Experts
%
Readers
Pass 100 33 35
3NT 100 28 10
4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) 80 22 33
4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 70 11 22
4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) 50 6 0
Other 10 0 1

No good deed goes unpunished, or so the saying goes. And so it proved: I supplied three of the problems this month, and so I got roped into moderating. Incidentally, if you do have any tough bids that have more than two plausible solutions, send them Brad's way - he's always looking out for problems. But only bridge-related problems, obviously, so don't anyone be doing anything unkind to him.

The first problem is from a Monday night at the New South Wales Bridge Association. As ever, there were a few complaints about prior actions:

Allan Simon (with Philip Cummings similarly): 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Why didn't I bid 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) earlier?

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3NT. Did I really pass the first time? Then I deserve this problem. Though I would have had it as well after (3images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes))-3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)-3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). But then partner would have had a better chance of helping.

None of the 18 expert panellists raised this as an issue, and I suspect there are a few issues at play: we're vulnerable against not, the diamonds aren't very good, we've only got 12 points and we have length in their suit. That's a lot of arguments against competing, and not many in favour.

Incidentally, when I sent Brad this problem, he replied with the scandalous claim that I used to bid on these hands. Naturally, I ignored him.

The problem actually came up at IMPs, but changing it to Matchpoints seems to have worked well, as a lot of those who would punt a game at IMPs are prepared to aim for +140. And -100 could be a great result if others are getting overboard. So much so that on both panels, a plurality of voters on went for that option:

Cathy Hocking: Pass. I think this is one of those diabolical hands that no matter what you bid you will not have a fit with partner. I can't bid 3NT as I do not have club cover. So I will chicken out and pass and hope Phil doesn't mind.

Don't worry Cathy, he doesn't:

Phil Hocking: Pass. Partner had other bids to show more strength.

Tony Treloar: Pass. I'll give partner a little latitude here with the likelihood of bad breaks etc.

Alex Kemeny: Pass. No fit. Stay low.

Sam Arber: Pass. There are probably good chances for 4 but at Matchpoints pass, and hope for only 9 tricks.

Stephen Robinson: Pass. Nothing is clear so I will stay low.

Brad Johnston (with Robert Black similarly): Pass. Partner could be balancing in passout, so not have full values - this hand looks like a misfit and any attempts to improve the contract will probably doom us to being doubled, or propel us past any making contract. 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) may even make, who knows we may have good cards for partner.

This next group had some support, but I'm not sure that I follow their rationale:

David Matthews: Pass. Hearts figure to break badly and I don't want to punish partner for balancing by raising to 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). This may be a matter of style but she did have double originally available to show a decent hand.

Michael Burt: Pass. Partner hasn't doubled which suggests a limited hand with 6+ hearts. 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) may play better but score worse than 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) making - pass.

True ... but there's limited and there's limited. 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) can be anything up to a good 16-count, and game could just have enough top tricks to make. I realise that 16 is less likely than, say, 12, but even then we could be making. So while I understand the rationale, we do have a nice 12-count, and partner is bidding freely. Which explains why some of the passers had a close second choice:

John R Mayne: Pass. Second choice: 3NT. But I'm hitting the brakes hard because of likely hard breaks. If we miss 7images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes), that's probably on partner, but if we miss six, that's on me.

David Appleton: Pass. Not happy, but undoubled, and maybe with some play. I guess it is between this and 3NT.

Brian Lawless: Pass. Only two options: Pass or 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Toss of a coin but, as it's not IMPs, the wrong guess may not be a total disaster.

Let's hear from some of the game bidders, starting with the minority:

Tania Black: 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I have a lot for partner that I have not shown, hopefully enough after ruffing the second or third Club.

Emil Battista: 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Slowly!:) Three good cards for partner as he should be short in Clubs. If West short in clubs - Pass.

Andrea Viscovich: 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I expect 6 hearts, my images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)K could be useful.

Well, it could be useful ... but against that, partner may have only five hearts, and singleton King isn't what's needed. One reader was listening to the auction:

Neil Silverman: 3NT. The bid with the most to win. Sure, our club stopper is a little shaky but opponents are not vul vs vul and didnt raise.

Indeed. Digging deeper, partner didn't make a takeout double, which he may (possibly) have done with, say, a 4-5-3-1 shape. Also, LHO hasn't raised clubs, and they probably won't have seven solid for their pre-empt, especially not at these colours. All of this adds weight to the possibility that partner has enough of a club stopper to This next one only got 11% of readers, but it also got 28% of the experts - far more than voted for 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes):

David Caprera: 3NT. Bidding what I think I can make. Mr. Hamman taught me that.

Ron Lel: 3NT. Hoping that my Jxx of clubs will prove to be a stopper. Too good to pass and too worried about a bad break to bid 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes).

Roger Yandle: 3NT. I'd pass if I thought 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) had a reasonable chance of success but if there is a bad split it could well fail when 3NT is making - give pard Kxx AJxxx Axx Qx. I'm prepared to run to 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) if the opps get the 4x2 out.

Julian Foster: 3NT. Most likely game in practice.

The fourth possibility is to KISS and bid what's in front of us. Only three experts chose this bid, and only Tim Cope sounded confident.

Dean Pokorny: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) let's partner choose between 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes), 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) and 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). 3NT would be too speculative since partner might easily have a 3-6-3-1 hand.

Nigel Guthrie: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). Faute de mieux.

When I was at high school, Japanese was replacing French, German and Latin as the languages that you study, so I had to ask Google Translate. It tells me that this means 'lack of better'.

Rainer Herrmann: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). I am not desperate enough to try 3NT, which might well make.

Dan Baker: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). If partner happens to have Qx in clubs, 3NT would be better, but anything more and there's a good chance he'd have bid 3NT himself. So I'll look elsewhere.

Peter Vlas: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). Tricky one. Enough to bid and with short clubs with P even 6images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) or for dreamers even 7images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) (xxx-AQJxxx-AQxx-void) could be an option.

True . . but surely West would have raised clubs if that were partner's hand.

Bastiaan Korner: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). Leaves more options open.

Nigel Kearney: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). Partner can choose which red suit game he wants to play. Obviously 3NT could be right but we're some way from running nine tricks even if we have a stopper. I don't think the upside justifies the risk of a bottom if wrong.

Alan Mace: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). showing game points but no heart support. Pass if partner bids 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) or 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes).

Let's round it off with a (very) minority view: a bid taken by only one expert and no readers.

Sartaj Hans: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). I like to play such bids as choice-of-game. 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) would represent a different kind of hand - longer or stronger diamonds.

I wouldn't want to try it at the table, partly because if you're going to be offering a choice of games, it would be nice to offer 3NT, which 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) obviously precludes. Also, not many pairs have that agreement (I certainly don't, with any of my partners), and I couldn't find it in the AB Standard system.

Nobody really seems very sure of their choice, which I guess means that this is a good problem.

The full deal:

spades Q62
hearts AQ7654
diamonds 86
clubs 73
spades K873
hearts J982
diamonds AQ4
clubs Q5
spades 1054
hearts 103
diamonds J9
clubs AK10982
spades AJ9
hearts K
diamonds K107532
clubs J64

The opponents can make 3NT, and one EW pair did manage +400. There was also one NS pair in the same spot, for -500. The rest of the field was split between 3images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) by East (making for 38%) and 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) by South (a good sacrifice for 77%).


Hand Two - North deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.
 
images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) T8
images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) J9862
images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) AT854
images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) 4

 
West North East South
  1images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) 2images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) pass
2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) ?

  
 

Call Award %
Experts
%
Readers
4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) 100 67 54
Dbl 80 22 35
5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 50 6 0
Pass 30 6 12

This is another one of mine, this time from the Australian Open trials. A fellow triallist also held this hand:

David Appleton: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). I seem to recall having this hand and seeing partner mispick diamonds. If we double they likely have a club fit (and were one off, if I recall).

There were complaints from a few people about our earlier inaction. For the experts, both Ron Klinger and Matthew Thomson would have made a takeout double on the previous round, as would (I assume):

Allan Simon: Dbl. This particular South is very timid in the first round of bidding, then he turns to us for help.

Let's hear from a partnership that I played against in a congress in NSW a few months ago:

Emil Battista: Dbl. If I was playing with Roger Yandle this auction and my holding suggests X. If Roger does not X then i will be very interested in his comments. :)

Roger Yandle: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Pard must have a strong distributional hand and I've got some really good cards in that light.

Hopefully you two have a chance to discuss this scenario before the next tournament comes around.

Now, on to the hand: partner has opened the bidding; then, despite our silence, he has not only found another bid, but thrown in a jump as well. This is showing a pretty serious hand, with a lot of offensive strength. Enough to bid 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes)? Not according to the following ...

Martyn Rew: Dbl. chances of making 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) here look remote.

Tony Treloar: Dbl. Looks like I have at least 2 defensive tricks and this should stop partner from competing further.

Dean Pokorny: Dbl. Since it is very hard to find a good 6images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) slam, let's take the positive score safely.

Curiously, most of the experts who doubled were expecting 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) to make, but to get a bigger penalty from 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Dean seems to be the only reader doubling because he expects an even bigger plus from defending than from playing. Most of the readers were worried that 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) might not make. The following were having a two-way shot:

Andrea Viscovich: Dbl. The law says 8 hearts and 8 or 9 spades = 17 tricks. If we make 4s they go down 3. I know my p is void and my h are bad.

Julian Foster: Dbl. Law of total tricks argument. They have 8 trumps. We probably have 9. 17 tricks. If we are making 10 tricks in spades they are probably going for 800 in H. Although against that it could be a big double fit hand.

But against that ...

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Reasonable chance of making and 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) may make as well

John R Mayne: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). This is not a real problem; partner is 6-0-x-x and there are layouts where 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) makes easily and 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) squeaks through.

Brian Lawless: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) might make even with this bad trump split. 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) also likely to make. We may have a double fit.

Brian has divined the position correctly: they do indeed have a double fit, as do we, which means that the Law of Total Tricks under-estimates the number of tricks available on the hand. Which explains why his choice was the majority, amongst both panels:

Nigel Guthrie: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). 2 trumps, an ace, and a ruffing value.

David Caprera: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). AKQ7th, void, an outside trick and a club ruff. 620>200.

John Newman: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Expecting partner to make it opposite 6+♤, heart void and diamond values.

Neil Silverman: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Figures to be cold or have a lot of play. Could also have a double fit when partner is 6-0-4-3 or 7-0-4-2.

Alan Jones: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). I assume that partner has 7 spades and no hearts.

Tania Black: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). It seems that I may have what partner needs, and I know that he is void in Hearts.

Tim Trahair: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Partner is showing strong Spades and presumably has 0 or 1 H. He is likely to have a few cards in each of the minors which are likely to prove useful with our long Ds and short Cs.

Dan Baker: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Partner thinks he can make eight tricks on his own, and I can probably provide two with a club ruff. I think -790 is more likely against 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)x than +800 is; I'd rather defend clubs than hearts (start heart ruff, diamond, heart ruff).

Ron Lel: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). The stiff Club and the images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)A are two excellent cards for partner providing she has her bid.

Robert Black: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). We have first and/or second round control in all side suits, and partner expected nothing from me at the three level.

Brad Johnston: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). West probably has HHxxx for their 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) bid, and East has Hxx and a reasonable club suit. Give partner a heart void and good spades, and I have a working shortage in clubs and a useful AD. We should definitely be making 10+ tricks in spades, but I don't have any effective slam-tries. It looks like they're getting out for a small penalty of probably 1 spade, 1 heart, 1-2 diamonds and maybe 1 club. That's not enough. Interesting that we didn't make a negative X of 2images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes), but it seems to have put us in a better hand evaluation spot now.

Nigel Kearney: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). We've got a good hand given our previous silence and there should be at least ten tricks if partner has anything close to a 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) bid. I'll be happy if he continues to 5images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) over 5images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) and want to make it easier for him to do that.

Playing the long game were:

Rainer Herrmann: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Maybe we get a chance to double 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)

David Matthews: 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Partner is going to have 7 Spades for this bid and my singleton Club will likely mean that 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) is making. If the oppos bid 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) I will double that.

And finally, three people who defended the hand exactly the same way I did:

Peter Vlas (Kees Schaafsma similarly): Dbl. Dbl and if they run to 5images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) I start my images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)2 for a ruff (after another dbl)

Michael Burt: Dbl. We should be able to get at least 4 tricks via various means (not guaranteed) and it is worth a double. EW can't run to 5images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) as we should get the first three tricks via images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)2 ruffed by partner, a diamond to the ace and another heart ruff.

For the uninitiated, when we give partner a ruff we give suit preference. In this case, we want a diamond. This is the lower of the other two suits, so we lead our lowest one. Unfortunately, on this hand, partner has C Ax, so only one ruff is useful. Still, great minds think alike, gentlemen.

The full deal:

spades AQJ7642
hearts
diamonds Q632
clubs A2
spades 53
hearts KQ1054
diamonds KJ9
clubs J105
spades K9
hearts A73
diamonds 7
clubs KQ98763
spades 108
hearts J9862
diamonds A10854
clubs 4

Only Hans - Gill were allowed to play in the easy 4images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Most of the field sacrificed in 5images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) by East, usually doubled and one off. At one table Beauchamp - Thomson took the push to 5images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes), losing two diamonds and a spade to go negative.


Hand Three - South deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.
 
images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) T93
images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) QT
images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) AK6
images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) AQT75

 
West North East South
      1NT
pass 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) * pass 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)
pass 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) pass ?

   2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) = hearts, 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) = natural and forcing.  
 

Call Award %
Experts
%
Readers
3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 100 44 38
4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 90 11 13
4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) 70 17 21
3NT 70 17 15
3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) 60 6 3
4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) 60 6 11

This one isn't mine, so direct your complaints to Brad. It's another awkward problem with no good answer: we don't have the three-card heart support that we'd like for a 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) bid; we don't have stoppers in the unbid suits that we'd like to bid 3NT; we don't have the spade cards that we'd need to bid 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes); and anything else could take us past the only making game. This problem got six different answers, from both the experts and the readers, which means that it's a tough one. And, as we've come to expect, a complaint about system:

David Caprera: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Playing second round transfers, North would rebid 3images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) showing diamonds. Now taking the transfer is a relay but denying heart support or a very good hand for diamonds. If partner shows club shortness, I play 3N. If partner shows spade shortness I can bid 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). And if partner shows 2-5-4-2, I guess to play 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes).

That's a method being adopted by more and more pairs. You lose responder's natural 2NT bid, but you gain a lot more flexibility. Some pairs go even further and play that a jump to an unexpected 4-level suit shows a double fit. For example, 1NT-2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)(S)-2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes)-2NT(C)-4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) shows three spades (with four you'd super-accept) and four or five clubs. However ... the purpose of a bidding forum isn't to find everyone's pet systems, it's to find out what you should bid with a strong partner and a basic system. So the point is well made, but it's not something that's likely to be part of AB Standard any time soon.

We'll start with the minority view:

Brad Johnston: 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). This shows diamond cards. I don't want to bid 3NT with 3 low spades, when I have such sharp cards supporting partner, but 3NT could be the last making spot. This 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) bid allows partner to bid 3N if it looks right; otherwise they can start cue-bidding or settle in 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) if that's their choice.

I don't think this is part of standard systems. For me, we're still probing 3NT, so all bids should be natural-ish. And the only 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) bidder on the expert panel didn't justify his choice with a comment. On a similar note:

Julian Foster: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). With so many values in partner's red suits I think I want to play in one of those. We are very suitable for slam if partner can move further (e.g. cue 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes)).

Again, I'd be worried that partner would intend 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) as showing spade values and interest in 3NT.

Roger Yandle: 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I'd like to bid 3.5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) but that doesn't seem to be one of the options.

Nigel Guthrie: 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Less encouraging than 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes).

Offering a different opinion:

David Matthews: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I don't want to go past 3NT so this should show only 2 hearts otherwise I would jump to 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes).

I think John, Roger and Nigel are more in line with expert thinking on this one. It's true that there are still some good pairs playing 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) as less than a game force, but they're a decreasing minority.

A couple of the experts who bid 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) made similar comments to those above. Nonetheless, 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) seems quite pessimistic to me: give partner a hand like x-AKJxx-Qxxxx-Kx - or even a 6/5 hand - and slam is very close. True, the images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes)Q may not be pulling its weight, but four honours in partner's suits plus the ace of clubs is surely more than partner will be expecting from us. As ever, there were votes for 3NT.

Peter Vlas: 3NT. Hamman. If it is an option...

Andrea Viscovich: 3NT. I have 2 hearts, even if I have the Queen I won't bid H.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3NT. no fit minimum. Yes it may go down, but best chance for a positive score

Leigh Matheson: 3NT. Effectively shows 3 diamonds (and 2 hearts). Partner has made a mild slam try and I think it best not to go past 3NT without 4-card support.

Sure, it could very easily be the best spot. But why rush to bid it now? If partner has something like my example hand above, he'll pass, confident that I have the black suits under control. Going off in 3NT when teammates bring back -1370 in 6images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) isn't much fun. Another minority view:

Larry Brose: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). P may expect more from me in Spades.

Cathy Hocking: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). I assume partner has 5 hearts and 5 diamonds. Showing a fit in diamonds and can cue bid from there. Maybe slam is on.

Tony Treloar: 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). Not sure what partner has in mind here but I have to co-operate.

I suspect the reason there's such a small vote for 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) is because of system, rather than judgment. It looks like these readers are expecting partner to be 5-5, but I don't think that's the majority view. The only expert to bid 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) was Sartaj Hans, who recognised the flaws, but was expecting partner to bid 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) (natural) with any bad hand.

For quite a few voters on both panels, there was an alternative way of showing diamonds: by bidding the other minor. Which makes sense - if we had heart support, we'd bid 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes); if we had black suit stoppers, we'd bid 3NT; if we had spade cards, we'd bid 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Let's see what else there is to say:

Dean Pokorny: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) describes this hand perfectly: 2 hearts, 3 diamonds, long clubs, no values in spades.

Dan Baker: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). Cue agreeing diamonds and denying spade control. If partner's shortness is in spades, 6images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) looks likely.

Tania Black: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). Cue/control bid, agreeing Hearts, and bypassing Spades to show the absence of a stopper.

Note that there's disagreement about which suit we're agreeing They're not alone: of the three experts to bid 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes), two (Frank Stewart and Mike Lawrence) admitted they weren't certain that this would get us to the right trump suit.

Phil Hocking: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). I'd be highly surprised if 3NT can fly so I am passing the buck to partner. If 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) is an advanced cue what is 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes)?

Alex Kemeny: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). In my opinion 3images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) should show slam interest. With my usual partner 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) is Turbo investigating a diamond slam. Even if not Turbo 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) is a cue agreeing diamonds.

Emil Battista: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). Obviously showing Club Ace and Diamond support.:) no 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes), no 3NT and more informative than 4images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)

Michael Burt: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). Partner looks to be at least 5-5 in diamonds and hearts (or has a really good hand with 5 hearts and 4 diamonds) and knows that I will have at least 3 card support for at least one of hearts or diamonds. Partner should take me for having the ace clubs (and some club length) and a reasonable hand for a potential slam bid.

Brian Lawless: 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). This must deny 3-card Heart support but show slam interest with good Diamonds. I have four key cards

Again, most of these voters seem to be expecting five diamonds.

This brings us to my preferred option, and the one chosen by a plurality of both experts and readers: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Certainly, we'd prefer to have a third heart (and in this respect 4images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) is more honest, as it does deny three hearts), but it has a lot of things going for it. Firstly, our hearts are pretty good, If partner has, say, H KJ865, then Q10 will be a lot more useful than 432. Secondly, it's the most honest bid that doesn't get us past 3NT. Thirdly, it's the cheapest bid, which leaves us more room to wriggle into our best spot. However, different people intended it as different things. Some people thought they were showing a bad hand ...

Alan Mace: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). South has min while North is invitational only.

And others were co-operating in a slam try ...

Robert Black: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Agreeing on the trump suit, and co-operating with a partner interested in slam.

Is he, though? It looks to me as if we're still trying to work out what the best game is.

Tim Trahair: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Reluctant to bid at the 4 level in case 3NT is the best home for us.

Nigel Kearney: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Shows three card support which I don't have, but I do have nice cards for a red suit contract and 3NT is still possible.

Stephen Robinson: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Since I don't have good spades, I'll support partner's hearts

David Appleton: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Although any three is often a stopper, not here for me. I shall offer an apology if partner is 3-5-4-1 with poor hearts.

John R Mayne: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). It looks like the 5-2 is going to play better than 3NT. While 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is usually the weaker hand here, I have well-placed cards and being a heart short may not be such a problem.

Is that what 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) would show? For me, if we haven't found a fit and are below 3NT, we're still exploring whether 3NT could be the best spot.

Rainer Herrmann: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). let's see what partners next bid will be.

Sam Arber: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Lie about doubleton heart. Minimum hand, weakness in spades.

Kees Schaafsma: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Waiting for North to bid 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes).

Neil Silverman: 3images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Yes we only have 2 hearts but leaves room open if partner say bids 3images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) you can try 3NT. 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) figures to be making. So no problem if he just raises.

It seems that this auction is frequent enough that the expert community would have reached agreement on it by now, but obviously not. Maybe ten years from now there will be a consensus, but for the time being, we're stuck with guesswork and natural bidding.

The full deal is from Johnno Newman at the Taree Swiss Teams. Partner held Q-AKJ63-QJ82-J43. The field was split between 3NT (going one off) and 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) (making 12 or 13).


Hand Four - West deals, nil vul, Matchpoints. You are South.
 
images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) 965
images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) AJT43
images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) AK
images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) 854

 
West North East South
1images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) pass 1images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) pass
1NT pass 2images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) * pass
2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) * pass pass ?

   1images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) is "better minor".
   2images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) asks partner to bid 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes). It shows either a
   desire to play in 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes), or any invitational hand.  
 

Call Award %
Experts
%
Readers
2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 100 61 21
Pass 90 28 53
Dbl 80 6 22
Misread 0 6 0
Other 0 0 4

This is the sort of problem that Brad likes, as the expert and reader votes were fairly divergent: the readers opted to pass; the experts realise the value of competing on partscore hands at Matchpoints. At the table (admittedly vulnerable at IMPs, so it's not exactly the same problem) I bid 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), which was not a success when partner had four good diamonds and only one heart. I checked the boards later, and two of the other seven tables played 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) as well, which was some sort of reassurance for me - as was the expert panel's strong vote that way.

Firstly, have we had any chances to show hearts already? Yes, says ...

David Appleton: 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Balancing into a suit where forewarned is forearmed is fine. Also, if we play 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) over 1images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) there as natural good six cards, then partner now has a fair idea of what I have.

Most expert pairs do play that, after (1images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes))-Pass-(1images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)), 2images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) and 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) would both be natural. If you're 5-5 in the other suits (diamonds and spades, in this case), you can bid 2NT.

There were also queries about East's likely shape:

John R Mayne: More information about their methods would be helpful - can East be 4-6 in the reds? I'm assuming yes.

Julian Foster: 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). East is weak probably x46x. 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is probably a 7 card fit for us but could come home easily enough - certainly it cannot be right to sell out to a probable 8 card D fit at the 2 level at love all matchpoints.

It's certainly standard in Australia to bid a 4-card major first, so you don't have to worry about East's having five hearts and four diamonds. Five-five is an outside possibility, but that would give partner a lot of black cards.

A minority view:

Sam Arber: 2NT. toss up between 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) and 2NT. Not going to pass

Robert Black: 2NT. West is minimum and balanced; East is not interested in bidding beyond 2 Diamonds. So partner has from 7 to 11 points - some, no doubt, in the black suits.

We could be making game. But the chances are remote enough that our best bet is probably to scramble to a making partscore.

A few people thought our best fit may actually be in the other major:

Brad Johnston: Pass. This auction looks like a misfit. Doubling may be correct - getting to a 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) contract or defending when partner has chunky diamonds. I can't justify a 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) bid, although knowing the opps style of rebidding 1NT (when holding 1) or raising Hearts (when holding 3) may be useful. I anticipate partner getting a few overruffs in hearts this defence.

Michael Burt: 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) which is likely to score badly as it was not given as an option. The bidding suggests that points are roughly even and that neither west or east has 4 spades. Therefore partner is likely to have 4 spades (or more if I am lucky). My hearts are in the right position given east's heart bid and partner may have clubs over west's clubs. I also have the possibility of ruffing a diamond in my hand. 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) may well make and score better than the alternatives.

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. Partner has spades. Defending 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) not vulnerable is not likely to be a good match point score.

But against that ..

Emil Battista: Pass. Partner could not intervene with 1images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) over 1images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) opening, so no 5 spades or not enough value

Roger Yandle: Pass. I'm tempted to bid pard's spades for him but I've a feeling this is a hand to defend.

But if we're angling towards 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes), why not try a double instead? A couple of readers think there's an additional upside to it:

Dean Pokorny: Dbl. Classic delayed take-out double with length in hearts. Partner will pass with 3244 and hopefully with many 4243 hands too.

Alan Mace: Dbl. partner will bid a major or leave DBL in with 5+Diamonds. Pass North's bid

However, this seems fairly optimistic to me. Given that the opponents have most of the outstanding strength and we have images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)AK, even if partner does have four diamonds, they're probably four quite small ones. Also, partner is highly unlikely to hold five diamonds: LHO has at least two, RHO has at least five and I have two making at most four for partner. Now for the other doublers:

Tim Trahair: Dbl. Appears partner has a few HCP and probably 4 or 5 Spades so don't want to let EW play in 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) when it appears East has 10 cards in the red suits

Peter Vlas: Dbl. No clue where this will end. I think I have too much to pass and P should be expecting something like this. If he doesn't we might end up with -180 or worse

Leigh Matheson (with Stephen Robinson and Andrea Viscovich similarly): Dbl. Opponents seems to have done well so far. I'm not keen on defending at the 2-level at Matchpoint scoring.

Alan Jones: Dbl. Planning to pass.Partner must have one of the black suits.

That's all good on the surface, but let's delve deeper into partner's hand: as noted above, he's unlikely to have five spades, which means that not only is 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) likely to be our best spot, but that double will rarely get us there. We normally have at least three hearts (else we would have doubled last time), but from his point of view 4324 and 4414 are more likely than 3523. And so with, say, 3244 or 3334, he'll try 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) or 3images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes). With Jxxx/Qx/xxx/Axx, our best spot is normally 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), but again, he'll bid 2images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes). Double is certainly the most flexible bid, and that's normally a good thing. This time, though, it seems that all it does is provide us with losing options. And if we're worried about bidding 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), maybe the best option is just to ...

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. A firm 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) might work better.

Phil Hocking: Pass. Partner has had three chances to bid.

Martyn Rew (with Tony Treloar similarly): Pass. No need to start digging a hole here. 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) may well not even be opps' best contract.

Tania Black: Pass. Not willing to make a unilateral decision, but hoping for a positive outcome.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Partner did not bid and his values are behind opener. Defending gives a better chance for a plus. 2nd option: 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)

Dan Baker: Pass. 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is tempting, but best case is that partner has a doubleton, and both opponents know enough about the hand to whack me if it's wrong (and it usually will be).

Cathy Hocking: Pass. I don't have a five card suit to bid. I also don't have 4 4 in the two unbid suits so I will choose to sit and defend 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes).

But a majority of experts and a few readers decided that we do have a five-card suit to bid, and that not only should we compete, but that we should just bid what's in front of us. Let's hear from them:

Neil Silverman (with Brian Lawless and David Matthews similarly): 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Passing doesn't really seem like an option in MP's but could be a winner. This seems pretty normal to me.

Nigel Kearney: 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). This may not work out but past experience tells me it is clearly the percentage action.

John R Mayne (continued): 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). This works better than it should.

Allan Simon : 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). You don't win matchpoint events by letting them play 2images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)

I agree that it's a close decision, and that bidding may go badly for us, and that it's scary bidding a suit that the opponents have already shown. Still, selling out at the two-level when the opponents have found a fit isn't a long-term winner, so as scary as it is I think we have to shut our eyes and just bid.

The full deal:

spades 10843
hearts K
diamonds Q1062
clubs J1062
spades AJ2
hearts 762
diamonds 98
clubs AK973
spades KQ7
hearts Q985
diamonds J7543
clubs Q
spades 965
hearts AJ1043
diamonds AK
clubs 854

1NT was the last making contract, with five EW pairs playing there (one of them doubled). The other three tables were in 2images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) by South, going off.


Hand Five - North deals, nil vul, Matchpoints. You are South.
 
images/spadesm.gif (111 bytes) KT2
images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 9652
images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) A8
images/clubsm.gif (113 bytes) AT75
 
West North East South
  1images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) ?

     
 

Call Award %
Experts
%
Readers
Dbl 100 83 60
5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) 40 17 38
Other 0 0 3

Another problem that's nothing to do with me. This one misfired a little, with a heavy majority of both panels opting to double.

In a way, this is a simple problem: what do we expect to score from 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), and what do we expect to score from 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)X. Sure, there's a tiny chance that with a super hand partner may raise 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) to 6, but that's pretty rare. If 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is going off, any plus score against 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)X is an improvement. If 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is making, we need to get +500. Only three votes were for anything other than Double and 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), but unfortunately, none of those voters commented. No, wait ...

Emil Battista: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). If I did submit a previous entry I fear it may have been 6images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) Uhmn...

Ah, so you're the culprit...

Let's move on to the 5-over-5 bidders:

Brad Johnston: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) shows a good hand. You don't lightly bid 5-over-5 on these sorts of auctions. With these sharp, offensive cards you can't double. Holding 11 HCP, East could 'easily' have pre-empted 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) on a suit like AQT9xxxx, and you could be over them with KJ8x or w/e - cards that are useless to partner declaring but certain tricks on defence. The 5-level's for the opponents, but it means that East is confident that 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)x is a better spot for him than an alternative, and you have no reason to disbelieve him here.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). 450/480 is a better score than 100/300. If we can get 500 this is wrong, but if West has 1 trick 300 is probably the maximum

Alan Mace: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). East with 8+ (9) diamonds so hand maybe KQJ diamonds and a ace in 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) a diamond lead maybe ruffed by W. Its toss a coin time. 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)X -3 is good. 2 off against 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) making? West has 6 HCP

This answer made me doubly confused me:

Nigel Guthrie: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Dean Pokorny is likely to double and he's probably right

Well if it's probably right, why not try it? Anyway, the man in question is with you about bidding 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes):

Dean Pokorny: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). If we want to reach slam when our partner holds, say, a x61x hand with 15+ HCP, we have to bid 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) right away. Such unusual bids always show decent equity for the slam, if opener does have extras.

Peter Vlas: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Even though they say 5 level is for the opps I believe we have a reasonable chance for it and no way other then gambling to get into slam

Michael Burt: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). Good bidding by East which is likely to lead to a poor result by us. With my hand 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is likely to make and slam is a distinct possibility but I don't know much about what is in partner's hand. Pass is too risky if partner just has ordinary values - likely to be passed out. Hope that slam is not making and that hearts makes 11 for a reasonable board.

Andrea Viscovich: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). With 4images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) and 11 HCP I support.

Tony Treloar: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I wouldn't be making a slam try against a minimum so no reason should I commit. Partner can raise if they want.

However, there's also this:

These last couple of readers look as if they're making a slam try. I'm not sure what they would have done if RHO had passed, but one reader offered some illumination:

Neil Silverman: Dbl. In matchpoints and with the hands my partners open these days I wouldn't have even forced to game, so 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) while it could be right seems like to big a bid to me.

Quite. And now it's even less likely that we'll make 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes), as we've been told that everything will be breaking badly. For example, even if partner holds images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes)AKxxxx, they may break 3-0 and we lose a trump trick anyway. Which explains why there was a landslide for:

Robert Black: Dbl. 5images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes) must surely fail, and 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) might. If Partner chooses to bid 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) he will not be disappointed with dummy.

Roger Yandle: Dbl. Balanced hand, 3 defensive tricks and pard opening the bidding suggests we might get more from defending than bidding 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes).

Phil Hocking: Dbl. East is likely void in hearts so may expect a heart lead. I have a chance to find out which suit partner wants and there must be points outside hearts. Partner didn't open strong so 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is unlikely.

Tania Black: Dbl. Should be a success, even if 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) makes.

Alan Jones: Dbl. Take the money. Hearts are obviously breaking badly, and I wouldn't be surprised if West could ruff the images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)A. I plan to lead the images/diamondsm.gif (109 bytes)A, and then decide whether to attack hearts or spades.

John R Mayne: Dbl. Taking the +100. Must do something, and 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) is way too committal. Partner is unlikely to pull, but if she does, I'm hanging her and bidding the slam.

Nigel Kearney: Dbl. There's a limit to how much you can let people push you around. Partner should be allowed to pull if shapely with short diamonds, but even if not I would still double.

Cathy Hocking: Dbl. We have the balance of points. If partner chooses he can bid 5 hearts or leave the double in as I have an eight loser hand. I am unwilling to bid 5 hearts not knowing how strong partner is.

Julian Foster: Dbl. What else? Don't have enough shape to bid 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes) myself.

Finally, a pair of answers that pleased me greatly ...

David Caprera: 5images/heartsm.gif (112 bytes). I have trump so I raise. I so have always wanted to say this: "should be unanimous".

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. No reader would dare say that this will be unanimous!

And on that note, I'll sign off for this month.

The full deal, supplied by Bruce Tier:

spades Q9643
hearts AKQJ73
diamonds
clubs 62
spades J75
hearts 84
diamonds 107
clubs KQ9843
spades A8
hearts 10
diamonds KQJ965432
clubs J
spades K102
hearts 9652
diamonds A8
clubs A1075

The April questions are online now, here, and the magazine should have arrived by the time you read this. We have also had some requests to make the archives of our previous forums available, so we will be working to do this over the next few months. -Brad



Top scores for February
1Ron Lel LAO500
2John R Mayne USA500
3David Matthews WA500
4Neil Silverman USA500
5Fraser Rew NZL500
6Kees Schaafsma NED490
7Nigel Kearney NZL480
8Stephen Robinson 480
9Julian Foster NSW480
10Roger Yandle NSW480
11Gareth Birdsall GBR480
12Conny Wahlgren SWE470
13Dominic Connolly NSW470
14Pravin Nahar NSW470
15Pat O'Connor NSW470
16Christine Chandler 470
17Brian Lawless GBR470
18Rainer Herrmann GER460
19Neil Ewart Vic460
20Alexander Schennikov 460
21Barry Teeger NSW460
22Bjarne Andersen DEN450
23Jack Lai 450
24Damo Nair USA450
25Todd Holes USA450
26Andrew Macalister GBR450
27John Newman NSW450
28Michael Davy Vic450
29Alex Kemeny NSW450
30Alan Jones Qld440
31Vlad Dragalchuk 440
32Phil Hocking NSW440
33Dan Baker USA440
34Ian Patterson Qld440
35Richard Canton 440
36Hans Van Vooren NED430
37John Shield NSW430
38Peter Robinson Qld430
39Leigh Matheson NSW430
40Larry Rapsky USA430
41David Woulds GBR430
42Cathy Hocking NSW430
43David Caprera USA430
44Andrew Richman 430
45Tania Black SA430
46Barbara Whitmee Qld430
47Cor Lof NED420
48Julian Gauld NSW420
49Larry Brose USA410
50Christer Enkvist SWE410
51Andrew Spooner ACT410
52Ian Spight NSW410
53Hattie Curtis 410
54Murray Perrin Qld410
55Leigh Blizzard Tas410
56Mark Laforge 400
57Nigel Guthrie GBR400
58Alan Mace 400
59Tim Trahair NSW400
60Niek van Vucht ACT400
61Fredrik Jarlvik SWE400
62Fairlie Ruggles 400
63Robert Black SA400
64Ig Nieuwenhuis NED400
65Peter Tarlinton NSW400
66Arthur Porter SA400
67David Johnson CAN400
     

Leading scores for 2019
1Ron Lel LAO500
2John R Mayne USA500
3David Matthews WA500
4Neil Silverman USA500
5Fraser Rew NZL500
6Kees Schaafsma NED490
7Nigel Kearney NZL480
8Stephen Robinson 480
9Julian Foster NSW480
10Roger Yandle NSW480
11Gareth Birdsall GBR480
12Conny Wahlgren SWE470
13Dominic Connolly NSW470
14Pravin Nahar NSW470
15Pat O'Connor NSW470
16Christine Chandler 470
17Brian Lawless GBR470
18Rainer Herrmann GER460
19Neil Ewart Vic460
20Alexander Schennikov 460
21Barry Teeger NSW460
22Bjarne Andersen DEN450
23Jack Lai 450
24Damo Nair USA450
25Todd Holes USA450
26Andrew Macalister GBR450
27John Newman NSW450
28Michael Davy Vic450
29Alex Kemeny NSW450
30Alan Jones Qld440
31Vlad Dragalchuk 440
32Phil Hocking NSW440
33Dan Baker USA440
34Ian Patterson Qld440
35Richard Canton 440
36Hans Van Vooren NED430
37John Shield NSW430
38Peter Robinson Qld430
39Leigh Matheson NSW430
40Larry Rapsky USA430
41David Woulds GBR430
42Cathy Hocking NSW430
43David Caprera USA430
44Andrew Richman 430
45Tania Black SA430
46Barbara Whitmee Qld430
47Cor Lof NED420
48Julian Gauld NSW420
49Larry Brose USA410
50Christer Enkvist SWE410
51Andrew Spooner ACT410
52Ian Spight NSW410
53Hattie Curtis 410
54Murray Perrin Qld410
55Leigh Blizzard Tas410
56Mark Laforge 400
57Nigel Guthrie GBR400
58Alan Mace 400
59Tim Trahair NSW400
60Niek van Vucht ACT400
61Fredrik Jarlvik SWE400
62Fairlie Ruggles 400
63Robert Black SA400
64Ig Nieuwenhuis NED400
65Peter Tarlinton NSW400
66Arthur Porter SA400
67David Johnson CAN400
     
Thank you to all the readers and visitors who entered this year's forums.
Click here to try your luck at the next set of problems, to be answered in the
April issue of Australian Bridge. And don't forget to check out your
February issue to see what the experts said about this month's hands.