Readers' Bidding Forum

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 including Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence and Ron Klinger.

Scroll down for final scores

Hand One - East deals, EW vul, Matchpoints. You are South.

	72
	AQ96
	QJ942
	87

West	North	East	South
1	1	1	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Dbl	100	31	29
3	90	4	4
2	80	19	10
3	80	11	0
2	70	15	4
4	70	4	15
3	60	8	20
2	50	8	6
2	30	0	4
5	10	0	8

We have an unusually high-scoring set this month, with 36 people scoring over 400 points. This means either (a) we have a lot of really good bidders among our readership, or (b) I have been setting problems that are too easy. If you believe the answer is (b), please send me some difficult problems to use next year. Your generous donation can help to ensure that this upward trend in bidding standards is brought to a quick end.

David Hester: 3. Game is not in view, and a diamond contract that makes scores better than a heart contract that doesn't.

Andrew Gordon: 3. Limit raise. Very good fit, normally showing five card support.

Malcolm Olivestone: 3. We have four losers in spades and clubs. Game seems most unlikely.

Nathan Crafti: 3. I have five diamonds in support of my partner. I have an intermediate hand. I don't have enough for a cue raise. I don't see the problem.

Most people did see the problem, or at least one of the following problems:
(1) Do we want to be constructive or defensive?
(2) If defensive, do we want to push them into game, or keep them out of game?
(3) If constructive, we have three cuebids available - what does each one mean?
(4) Is there any point in showing the heart suit?

Let's start by looking at the cuebids:

Ron Lel: 2. Nice problem. Pard and I have two cuebids available here, in clubs and spades. We play that the club cue bid shows some heart values as well.

Robin Cross: 2. The 'higher' cuebid shows 4+ card limit raise values in my methods. If partner bids hearts, I will raise since I have already shown 4+ card support for diamonds.

Barry Noble: 2. Limit raise, stronger than 3.

Jameson Cole: 2. Clues partner in on the good diamond fit immediately. If we have a heart fit, perhaps partner can uncover it, however, we are likely to be outbid because of the two bad doubletons in their suits.

Sam Arber: 2. Good raise to 3. The other option is 2. Keep them guessing by not mentioning the heart suit.

Concealing the heart suit might keep them guessing, but it may be partner who needs to guess. In the interests of helping partner, put me in with:

GMJ Hofman: 3. Fit-showing.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. It isn't clear, from the system summary, whether or not this is a fit jump but, anyway, it's worth risking for the lead.

A good effort from Nigel, backing his judgement in spite of doubt about how the bid would be scored.

Denis Haynes: 2. Show the hearts and wait for the next round to support diamonds.

Manuel Paulo: 2. On the way to 3 -- the value bid -- I show my heart values, allowing partner to better evaluate his hand.

For those that chose to support diamonds directly, there is the question of where we want the auction to end:

Peter Robinson: 4. I reckon it's their hand, but there's no certainty they'll make the game they're about to bid.

Alexander Cook: 5. At favourable vulnerability, a jump to 5 is worth the risk to stop the opponents bidding 4. This bid puts maximum pressure on the opponents and makes them do the guesswork.

Frank Campbell: 4. I have five good trumps and useful values. Doubt they can make game but this shouldn't be expensive and could make.

Rex Fox: 5. With six loser count should not go for more than -500 if doubled.

Eric Leong: 4. Who knows? With our side holding at least a ten card fit in diamonds bidding 4 might result in buying the contract when the opponents have a game or get the opponents to overbid.

Tim Trahair: 2. As inverted minors are in the system, this seems an economical bid. If EW have a fit in the black suits we may need to end up considering a sacrifice in 5.

Apologies to anyone else who felt that inverted minors were in play here. Inverted minors are only played in uncontested auctions. In contested auctions, cue raises are available for constructive supporting hands. It is essential to show trump support in competitive auctions, so a natural 2 is a necessity, for those hands where you can't afford to do more.

In fact, some people (inexplicably) did feel that we can't afford to do more:

Meshack Kgosidialwa: 2. Show partner 6-9 points and diamond support.

Fred Altstock: 2. Give some support to partner since we are not vulnerable.

Two thirds of the panel chose to support diamonds, but their votes were split among six different actions. So, in keeping with our hideous policy of giving the top score to the bid with the most votes, the 100 points goes to the minority who chose to give the opponents a free run:

Steve Johnston: Dbl. I am prepared to bid 4 over 3.

Ming Chan: Dbl. Too much for a simple 3 bid.

Richard Bowdery: Dbl. This is an easy one for me, my system dictates that double shows diamond support plus four cards in the unbid suit.

Just because the system gives you a bid that shows hearts as well as diamond support, that doesn't mean you always have to use it. Have you weighed up the benefits of a preemptive diamond bid, against the chances of partner caring about your heart suit?

Paul Hardy: Dbl. Majors first, so I show my hearts before supporting diamonds.

The reason for "majors first" is because it's easier to make 4 than 5. But can we really play this hand in 4? If we have a heart fit to go with our ten diamonds, that leaves us with only eight black cards.

That leaves the opponents with about a thousand spades, and the final word. They outrank both our red suits, so do we really care whether we play in hearts or diamonds? Apparently, we do:

Craig Taberner: Dbl. Double to show fourth suit, and later support diamonds.

Zbych Bednarek: Dbl. Showing hearts -- good enuff for partner to lead, while I have an easy Q lead from my side.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Showing hearts. I will support diamonds in due course.

Fraser Rew: Dbl. Then bid diamonds if pard doesn't bid hearts. Tougher at IMPs. I suppose having 2 showing diamonds with heart tolerance could make sense (2 being the cue raise) but it's a bit too much to expect pard to work it out at the table.

Sydney Frish: Dbl. Prepared to bid diamonds later to necessary level. But to show hearts first could be important for partner should he be on lead.

Hand Two - South deals, nil vul, IMPs. You are South.

	---
	AJ9852
	A7
	QT976

West	North	East	South
			1
4	pass	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
5	100	61	45
4NT	90	8	3
Pass	80	12	40
Dbl	60	19	9
Other	0	0	3

While the first problem generated ten different answers, the rest of the hands in this set are basic "do you or don't you" problems, with only two or three sensible options.

Ladies first:

David Hester: Pass. Colour me yellow!

John Leenders: Pass. I'd hate to hear 5.

Rex Fox: Pass. 5 would be a gamble at this vulnerability.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. No bullets no fight. Give me AQTxx and 5 would be automatic (no risk no fun!).

Fred Altstock: Pass. With no support from partner am not interested. Don′t want to push them up to a possible slam.

Eric Leong: Pass. Bidding over 4 is like trying to buy a winning ticket to a lottery.

Nathan Crafti: Pass. This looks suspiciously like Problem One from last month from the other side. Pard has heard the bidding and has nothing to contribute. Neither do I (but then again I ALWAYS get these wrong).

True, it is very similar to last month's problem. But last month you doubled (in keeping with your "always getting these wrong" philosophy!).

Andrew Gordon: Pass. Cooked. Some days 5 could be tried. Partner could not find any bid.

Alexander Cook: Pass. Partner could have bid 4NT for the minors, raised to 5 or doubled. Your hearts and clubs aren't strong enough to make a unilateral bid of 5 or 5.

Jameson Cole: Pass. Partner didn't make a penalty double, so 4 probably will make roughly half the time, but a 50-50 proposition is not sufficient to warrant the risk of declaring 5 or 5 doubled.

For those who chose to act, 5 is the obvious choice.

Fraser Rew: 5. The only problem with this is that my eager-beaver partner may take the push to 6 over 5.

Tim Trahair: 5. Possibly slam is on for us. 5 lets pard know how strong we are and to decide what to do next -- if anything.

Sam Arber: 5. Five loser hand. Partner did not double 4, so keep bidding.

Manuel Paulo: 5. Partner couldn't afford a penalty double; so I take insurance.

Frank Campbell: 5. Can't risk a diamond bid if I double, and would like to play in one of my suits.

Robin Cross: 5. Do we really want to keep playing with our other pair? The partner with 'shortness' is supposed to bid. I hope that partner does not hold something like AJ9x of spades.

Ron Lel: Dbl. As double by partner is takeout, not penalties, I have to protect against the penalty pass (hopefully) that partner has.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Partner could have my share of spades and be short in hearts.

A couple of people commented on the possibility of partner having a penalty pass. AB Standard does state "negative doubles to 4", so we know North's double would have been penalty.

But does that mean South's double is also penalty? While some claim that double is penalty from both sides, I have some doubt about that. How do you play this with your partner? If, like me, you don't know, you probably should discuss it soon.

Ming Chan: Dbl. For takeout. 5 and 4NT don't allow the possibility for penalties. Two aces are always good if partner wants to penalise; if partner bids 5 then pull to 5.

Bill Bennett: 5. Any bid, including pass, is a gamble, but with this two suiter, we are likely to find a fit, and catastrophe is unlikely.

Sydney Frish: 5. Perhaps this time partner will have the right cards.

Peter Robinson: 5. Next. Even with 5-5, bidding on seems to work in these situations.

Malcolm Olivestone: 5. Shows a big two suiter and asks for preference. Double could find partner with long diamonds and few spades.

Barry Noble: 5. Partner only needs to have KJx, and maybe Qx.

Nigel Guthrie: 5. We all need 100 easy points. Thank you :)

You're welcome. But you certainly don't need the easy points with the scores you've been getting lately! The same applies to:

Richard Bowdery: 4NT. Two suited, not wishing for partner to pass a re-opening double.

At first glance I thought that 4NT was at least as good as 5, putting emphasis on the hearts rather than the clubs. But there are three good reasons to abide by Phil Gue's decision to give the bid only 90 points: (1) I rarely change the awards that Phil gives, (2) I would rather have West on lead than East, and (3) I couldn't bear the thought of two Brits scoring 500 points in the same month.

Hand Three - East deals, EW vul, IMPs. You are South.

	K84
	AKQ6
	KT86
	A2

West	North	East	South
		1	dbl
1	pass	3	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Dbl	100	52	63
Pass	90	48	33
Other	0	0	4

A great advertisement for getting to the three level quickly. While 3 traditionally shows a constructive hand (say 16+), there isn't really a lot of downside in East making this bid on any hand with a good suit. On a bad day, his partner may end up in 3NT doubled for -800 (my team mates budget for this kind of thing). On a good day (today) he will give South a nasty problem.

Nathan Crafti: Dbl. Too much firepower to supinely surrender to 3. For gawd's sake pard bid something.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. If at first you don't succeed ...

Richard Bowdery: Dbl. One more try at dredging up a noise from my man, and if he passes...

Alexander Cook: Dbl. This second takeout double shows a super-powerful hand with at least 16 HCP. With four cards in both of the unbid suits and 19 HCP you are certainly strong enough to make this powerful bid.

Malcolm Olivestone: Dbl. Double will hopefully find partner with one of the red suits. If West bids again, there is the good possibility of a penalty double.

That's true. But if you double, West won't bid again (except for a loud redouble).

Bill Bennett: Dbl. We probably have the majority of the points, and should look for a red suit fit.

Ron Lel: Dbl. One last shot. I will pass three of a red suit.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Asking partner to bid either hearts or diamonds or pass if he has clubs for penalties.

Eric Leong: Dbl. I suppose I should try to show a little more sign of life. After all, a decent game is possible if partner holds something like xx-xxxxx-QJx-xxx or the equivalent.

John Leenders: Dbl. Must do something.

In my experience, bidding because I "must do something" has gotten me in a lot of trouble. I'm learning to make sure there is a sensible "something" to do, before I do it.

Peter Robinson: Dbl. The theory of Total Tricks has generally improved outcomes in this area. Partner may be able to judge to pass 3 with only a few trumps.

Tim Trahair: Dbl. Competitive and showing a strong hand. Seems a good chance North has four in one of the red suits.

Paul Hardy: Dbl. Pass just doesn't seem right and double is the only other choice.

I started this problem as a swinging voter, but after hearing all the arguments, I'm 100% with the minority:

Manuel Paulo: Pass. After another double, partner is likely to bid a 3-card red suit; I would rather defend.

Denis Haynes: Pass. EW will end up in 3NT.

Fraser Rew: Pass. As much as it pains me to do this, partner, holding a semi-balanced near-yarborough with four (or even five) hearts will thank me. He's heard me double -- with a bad hand and distribution he can bid 3-red on his own.

That seems about right to me. If West is planning to pass 3, then surely partner will reopen when it's right. If West isn't planning to pass 3, then we can dish out some serious injuries -- as long as we keep quiet until they hang themselves.

Andrew Gordon: Pass. My K looks like his head will be lopped off. The bidding has not finished yet.

Ming Chan: Pass. Partner did not bid over 1, and figures to have very few points. From the LTT 3 and 3 figure to go down.

Rex Fox: Pass. Partner should try to bid over the 1 bid with even 4-ish points and a useful fit in the red suits, so he is probably bereft.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I would like to compete in three of either red suit but partner has nothing and could even have mainly black cards. This could be our best chance of a plus.

Robin Cross: Pass. Partner should have a really nice zero HCP hand. We might even go plus defending 3.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. The hardest bid. Even if pard a has red suit, his range is close to ZERO. No bullets no fight.

Jameson Cole: Pass. Undervalues my hand by two kings, but we are close to beating any contract they declare even if partner is broke.

Sydney Frish: Pass. Unlikely that partner has any points. We should have better chance defending.

Sam Arber: Pass. They may keep on bidding, try for a positive.

Hand Four - South deals, EW vul, IMPs. You are South.

	5
	AJ754
	AQJ
	9632

West	North	East	South
			1
3	3	pass	?

is a weak jump overcall.

is natural and forcing.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3NT	100	65	37
4	80	27	45
4	40	8	11
4	20	0	6
Other	0	0	1

Eric Leong: 3NT. 3NT is the least ridiculous bid available. Perhaps if partner doesn't have club help the suit is blocked.

Richard Bowdery: 3NT. Yuch, nasty problem. I will guess that clubs are either stopped or blocked.

Denis Haynes: 3NT. I do have "some" clubs and control in the red suits.

Bill Bennett: 3NT. Weak jumps are seldom based on a solid suit, so I must hope North can stop the clubs. Forced to bid, I can hardly support pard, rebid hearts or bid 4.

It was a last minute decision to include the 9 in this hand. In retrospect, this was an error, as it gave two-thirds of the panel an excuse to bid their favourite contract. This would be a really tough problem if the clubs were 5432.

Barry Noble: 3NT. Slightly dangerous if partner doesn't have a club stopper.

Nathan Crafti: 3NT. Bid confidently and pray pard has half a club stopper. By the way what sort of idiot system makes the 3 forcing?

I thought I had seen every system under the sun, but I've never seen anyone play 3 as non-forcing here. Surely even the most zealous negative-free-bid supporters wouldn't go this far?

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. I've changed my mind about opening this hand. I expect West will take the first seven tricks I just hope that he is so happy that he forgets to double.

Craig Taberner: 3NT. Is weak J109xxx (my style) or AKxxxxx?

Weak includes both of these hands. If you have an agreement that weak is always JT9xxx (or always AKxxxxx) then it's too easy for the opponents to know what to do. You need to mix up your preempts, otherwise they are a blunt sword.

Fred Altstock: 3NT. Least of bids available to me. Cannot pass. Partner has forced me to bid.

Steve Johnston: 3NT. This is tough, if this is a disaster at least I will be declarer.

Sam Arber: 3NT. Hope partner has semi stopper, or partner has delayed heart support or lots of shape. Maybe 4 is a better bid but I'll stick with 3NT; partner may pull with no stopper.

That's right, it's always partner's problem!

I originally voted for 4, but after reading the comments, I'm now totally convinced that 3NT is right. I wonder if any of these people will feel the same way:

Zbych Bednarek: 4. What can I do?? 3NT?? NEVER. 4 the only bid.

Robin Cross: 4. Maybe partner has Kxxxx or a really good sense of humour. He hopefully rebids his good 6+ card spade suit and I pass in tempo.

Fraser Rew: 4. If 4 was waiting that would be ideal, but it should show some spade raise. It's better to lie in a minor than a major.

Frank Campbell: 4. Can't bid 3NT, support spades or repeat my hearts, so what's left. Will pass 4 or 4.

Rex Fox: 4. Describing where I live, trust partner to have either solid spades or concealed heart support.

Malcolm Olivestone: 4. Tough one. 3NT could be suicide. With six spades, partner can go 4.

John Leenders: 4. No option.

Tim Trahair: 4. Risky bidding a three card suit but don't like anything else!

Margaret Reid: 4. Would like to chance 3NT but could be expensive. Bid my hand.

Peter Robinson: 4. Don't often do this, but I don't see a safe alternative. No reason to place partner with any clubs.

Jameson Cole: 4. Pass is NOT an option. Partner wouldn't have bid 3 with a weak suit and a club stopper. So he either has a good 5+ card suit or heart support, and he may have a doubleton club. I won't bid 3NT lacking a stopper. My 4 bid does not show spade support since we have a cue bid available. I'll pass partner's 4 or 4 call.

Ming Chan: 4. Make a small lie rather than a larger one. Whatever you bid could be wrong; pass, 3NT, 4, 4, 4 could all be wrong but 4 is the lesser of evils.

Sydney Frish: 4. I'd rather abstain - but I hope this bid is better than 3NT.

Ken Berry: 4. Not sure what 4 means, but I've still got hardly nothing.

Andrew Gordon: 4. Where is my 4th Diamond?

Paul Hardy: 4. Ugh.

David Hester: 4. Ugh! What else is there? Let's keep it flexible, and hope it isn't my neck.

My spellchecker rejected "Ugh", but I've added it to the dictionary in case it comes up again. But I'm drawing the line at "Gack".

Ron Lel: 4. Gack. I would like to double partner's bid for takeout, but that is illegal.

In the old days, before computers, when people submitted their bidding forum answers on postcards, there would have been a lot of people doubling on this hand. Today, the good old drop down box prevents that. I was tempted to include Double on the list to see if anyone took the bait -- maybe one day I will (so stay alert).

On that topic, several people have asked me how we decide which bids to make available as potential bids (since some of the options in the drop down box are pretty bizarre). The answer is, I go through the list of every partner I have ever played with, and imagine what they would do. Then I put all the results into the drop down box. So if you think some of the options are weird, then you have some idea of the kind of thing I've had to put up with over the past 15 years (not mentioning any names -- you know who you are)!

Hand Five - West deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AKQ3
	JT94
	7
	AQ52

West	North	East	South
4	pass	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	42	58
4	80	27	6
Dbl	60	31	36

Ron Lel: Pass. Easiest problem. I would say "You have got to be kidding!". Partner has short hearts and can't move? What's the problem?

OK Ron, you get the points again. It was really close though, with 58% of experts choosing to take action (meaning the top score has once again gone to the minority view).

Nathan Crafti: Pass. Sadly, double is for takeout and if I double pard will surely bid 5. Fixed by the preempt. Just have to settle for +100.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. If double is mainly takeout what do you do if partner bids diamonds? In the UK we get round this by using the stop card before doubling.

Eric Leong: Pass. If you play a double of 4 for takeout than doubling with this hand simply risks trading a small plus for a big minus.

Ken Berry: Pass. Who's spades are better, North or East? Who's afraid of 5? Too many questions... too hard.

Richard Bowdery: Pass. Partner has short hearts and failed to act, I can't stand a 5 bid if I double.

Bill Bennett: Pass. 4 is quite likely to fail. If I double, North is more likely than not to bid diamonds, and neither a diamond contract nor NT is attractive. A bid from me will probably turn a positive score into a negative.

Alexander Cook: Pass. Double would be for takeout, so pass to obtain a likely positive score. Doubling for takeout is not a clever idea with length in the opponents' suit. You should make one heart, one or two spades, and one or two clubs to defeat 4 by one, possibly two tricks if partner has something.

Jameson Cole: Pass. Partner is short in hearts and took no action. Pass is the best hope for a plus score.

Sam Arber: Pass. Again pass looks best way to get a plus score, with partner short in hearts but not bidding. West may be a big two suiter in hearts and diamonds, so we may not even shoot 4. But likely to go down in any of our contracts.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I have at least one trump trick and we could well defeat this. Partner must be short in hearts but could not bid. Double is for takeout so what happens after the inevitable diamond response? I don't really fancy 4 or 4NT so will take the most likely plus.

Paul Hardy: Pass. Partner has 13 cards in the other 3 suits (and so does RHO). Are you sure I am not playing with West? To much to risk going for a digit or two.

Rex Fox: Pass. Partner with shortage should double for takeout if possible, a double or 4 here asks for trouble.

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Pass if we have been playing well. Double if we need to catch up, hoping for a spade response, and not diamonds.

Margaret Reid: Pass. What can we do but stay fixed. At least we will get a plus score. Can't double cos pd will surely bid diamonds.

John Leenders: Pass. Hate to hear 5 after a double.

Nearly all of the passers mentioned the fear of partner bidding diamonds (again, reminiscent of last month's Problem One). This didn't faze everyone though:

Malcolm Olivestone: Dbl. If partner goes to spades, fine. The only real problem is if he bids 5.

Robin Cross: Dbl. The LAW strongly suggests that partner should not bid 5. We tend to either defend 4 or perhaps partner might bid 4 with extreme shape.

Note how Robin spells "LAW" with all upper case, while Peter Robinson spells "theory" with all lower case! Maybe we could call it the "Supposition of Total Tricks".

Tim Trahair: Dbl. Too strong to pass. 4NT would invite 5 and no doubt North has a fistful of them. But he may also have four spades.

David Hester: Dbl. I want to bid "Penalty double", but they won't let me do it any more.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Trumps and tricks in side suits give me the strength to double.

Ming Chan: Dbl. Risky passing or doubling but it must be bid.

Another person doubling because they "must". Like I said before, "must" isn't always a good enough reason for bidding -- you also need to have a sensible bid (in this case, 4):

Barry Noble: 4. Partner is short of hearts and could easily have four or five small spades.

Peter Robinson: 4. This is a standard problem, and I've observed that this seems to work more often than one would expect.

Andrew Gordon: Dbl. For take out. The problem comes when partner bids 5. One could try a gamble bid of 4, but 5 might be the only game.

Sydney Frish: Pass. But 4 on a good day!

Fraser Rew: Pass. Again, not much fun passing. But the hand with the shortage hasn't taken action. Prefer 4 rather than double.

I thought there would be a lot more votes for 4, but maybe people were afraid of not getting the top score. Even Al Roth chose 4, and they don't come any more conservative than him. I bet you would have all bid 4 at the table!