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, with moderator Peter Smith.

Scroll down for final scores

Hand One - West deals, both vul, Matchpoints. You are South.

	A9
	8
	AKT85
	AT875

West	North	East	South
2	pass	3	?

is a weak two, and 3

is a non-constructive raise.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
4NT	100	62	44
3NT	70	14	23
4	50	14	15
Pass	30	5	12
Dbl	30	5	3
4	10	0	2
Other	10	0	1

We start this month with an impressive result – such a tempting example of Hamman's Rule, but hardly anyone fell into temptation.

Fraser Rew: 4NT. 3NT could work better, but the controls, shape, and no source of tricks tell me it's not a long-term winner.

Sam Arber: 4NT. 3NT may be best MP score, and 6-minor could be laydown, but the most likely positive is 5-minor.

Not quite the most likely positive... but before getting into that discussion, we need to have a few words about the convention known as The Unusual Notrump.

Ian Patterson: 4NT. Strong takeout for minors.

Barbara Whitmee: 4NT. Want partner to pick a minor.

Steve Hurley: 4NT. A quick bid to the five level may yield results.

Frank Campbell: 4NT. Obvious takeout for the minors.

John Leenders: 4NT. This shows two suited hand in my book.

Fred Altstock: 4NT. Asking partner to pick his best minor – I hope.

Manuel Paulo: 4NT. Unusual notrump.

Note that the key word in this discussion is "Unusual". We obviously don't want to play in 4NT, so 4NT is an "Unusual Notrump". Compare with the "Usual Notrump":

Leon Slonim: 3NT. Partnership agreement asks for minors.

Sandra Capper: 3NT. I feel 4 or 4 should make, but going down one is still better than them making 3.

Tim Trahair: 3NT. For the minors. Where are all the hearts? Probably with North but he can't have many spades and should have a few in the minors. If he bids 4/ I'll raise to five, if he bids 5/ I'll raise to six.

William Striker: 3NT. Unusual NT; it's getting rich but we'll get to the best minor.

Martin Eggins: 4. 3NT too ambiguous and double will surely get a 4 answer.

Unlike 4NT, 3NT is a very normal, non-unusual bid (more often referred to as a contract). As Leon suggests, it is possible to have a partnership agreement where 3NT is for the minors, but this is in no way a standard treatment.

Playing 3NT as artificial here means you can never play in 3NT on these auctions. Which do you think is more useful: a 3NT minor-suit takeout allowing you to stop nicely in 4-minor, or a natural 3NT allowing you to play in 3NT?

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. 3NT seems best at matchpoints. It needs fewer tricks and scores more than a minor game. How to stop partner short of a heart slam? Nae probs for us in the UK! Again, face your trusty STOP and 3NT cards together on the table; if partner obstinately bids 4, then you'd better pass – he is blind or stupid, or has very good hearts.

Steve Johnston: 3NT. Horrible – but it is matchpoints.

Leigh Gold: 3NT. Will take the risk, as 5-minor is a long way away.

Jameson Cole: 3NT. The toughest hand of this set. I'd like to have another winner in my hand (Q?) but my hand is too good to pass quietly even though bidding risks going down. Double is impossible, showing heart support.

Let's get back to the discussion about the "most likely positive". I'm not convinced that a 5-level contract is a more likely positive than a 4-level contract, despite the following argument:

Margaret Reid: 4NT. Let's get to our optimum contract.

Ron Lel: 4NT. Well at least we will get to the right denomination if not the right level.

There's a lot of sense in choosing the right denomination, and I suppose it's probably a winning philosophy. But who says there is a "wrong" denomination? Or even a "right" one? On many hands, one minor will play as well (or as badly) as the other, and the extra level may be worth a bundle.

Ken Berry: 4. Can't double, can't 3NT, don't want to pass, 4NT would commit to five level. What's a non-constructive raise? Sounds like a nasty beast, so I have to bid since I've sat and thought so long! At least I'll get a good lead from partner!

As well as Ken, Denis Haynes was also unsure about "non-constructive raise", guessing wrongly that it probably meant "showing some points". Maybe I should have used the word "terminal" instead of "non-constructive".

Many people would describe the 3 bid as "preemptive", but I'm not a fan of that word. It tells us nothing about the hand other than what we already knew – that we have been preempted. A preemptive bid, depending on the auction, can contain anything from a yarborough to a 16-count. Even a strong 1NT opening is preemptive, in the sense that it is more likely to silence the opponents than a 1 opening.

Anyway, what I was trying to say was "to play", or "obstructive" – as opposed to a constructive or invitational bid that would promise some values.

Bob Samuels: 4. Looks like game in a minor and able to deny hearts.

Ian Smith: 4. Then 5 over 4 from partner or double over 4.

Putting the final touches on the issue of "most likely positive":

Eric Leong: Pass. Passing will probably result in a plus score but maybe not the best plus score available. But you do avoid minus scores getting to silly contracts. So in the worst possible case, you get something. Bidding on speculatively is going to result in a very good board or a very lousy board.

Richard Bowdery: Pass. I expect to get 200 out of this board when we can't make game. Where are all the hearts, mostly in partner's hand. Pard is still there!

Denis Haynes: Pass. I will wait to defend.

Robin Cross: Pass. A coward dies a thousand times. A brave man dies but once.

On the actual deal, from the recent New Zealand nationals, Pass was the technically correct action:

J8
KQ743
Q74
Q43

Q107642
5
32
KJ96
K53
AJ10962
J96
2

A9
8
AK1085
A10875

West North East South

2 pass 3 4

all pass

Result: 10 tricks, NS +130

I'm not proud of my 4 bid, but the opponents were kind enough to let me make it and the matchpoint reward was quite generous. Passing 3 would have been an easier way to make a living.

Hand Two - West deals, EW vul, IMPs. You are South.

	---
	QT854
	AKQ
	AT853

West	North	East	South
pass	pass	1	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
2	100	38	41
Dbl	90	38	50
2	70	24	9

Only two questions here: do we want to show the fifth heart, and if so, do we want to go a bit higher and give partner a backup plan in clubs? Voting no and no:

Ian Smith: Dbl. What else???

Richard Bowdery: Dbl. WTP? Oh I see, should I Michaels? Not for me!

Alexander Cook: Dbl. What else is there to bid here?

The "what else" is clearly a rhetorical question, because all the other possible bids are listed in the drop down box on the web page.

Tim Trahair: Dbl. With such a strong hand it seems better to double and rebid rather than using a Michaels 2.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Partner, I have points in everything else. Pick something.

Eric Leong: Dbl. If you know LHO is going to bid some number of spades you certainly want to get your one bid in that gets three suits into the picture for your partner now.

Ian Patterson: Dbl. Prepared to double again over 3 or 4.

Steve Hurley: Dbl. Keep the auction low, and prepared for another double to keep it moving.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Shows an opening hand and possibly allows partner to bid at a lower level.

Keeping the auction low is a good argument for Double, and on the actual hand it's the only action that doesn't commit us to a minus score.

Zbych Bednarek: Dbl. Choice is between 2 and double. With weak heart suit, double seems better.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Will bid hearts over a minor, suggesting five hearts and a good hand.

Martin Eggins: Dbl. Very shapely hand with support in three suits. Too good for Michaels.

Ron Lel: Dbl. I don't like making a two suited overcall on this type of hand – there is far too much strength in the diamond suit.

Sandra Capper: Dbl. Happy with whatever partner bids, and strong enough to bid hearts later if necessary.

Jameson Cole: Dbl. My passed hand partner will have no better than an eight loser hand with 3-4 spades which slows me down. I have a weakish four loser hand. But if partner bids 2, I have a solid 3 invitational raise.

The doublers were pretty confident that there was no other option, but the Michaels bidders were even more so:

Ken Berry: 2. I'm just bidding what I would at a table. Should I be looking for something else?

Fraser Rew: 2. Has this one slipped in from Paul's novice classes? Really can't see an alternative.

It didn't come from the novice classes, but you are close – this problem did come from the Marston files. But he wasn't the 2 bidder; he was the unhappy partner. Given how close the voting was, this problem will probably never make it into the novice classes.

Bob Samuels: 2. Hearts plus support in a minor.

Craig Becconsall: 2. Accurately describes your hand.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. 2 is least flawed. The problem with 2 is not that this hand is too strong (you can double again later) but that it focuses attention on the round suits when diamonds may be your best bet. IMO, however double is a greater distortion with two five card suits.

Frank Campbell: 2. Originally was going to double but the hand is much stronger if pard has a fit in either of my suits. Will bid 5 over 4 if required.

Sam Arber: 2. Michaels is weak or strong, best description for this hand.

I think Sam, like Frank before him, is suggesting that this is the "strong" Michaels. In other words, he is planning to bid again. This plan is supported by only one other person, but it is a significant person:

Ron Klinger: 2. With only four losers, am prepared to bid again opposite minimum action by partner.

That action would have taken you for a four-figure penalty at the table. But the hand is clearly too strong for weak Michaels, which makes this last choice quite attractive:

Leigh Gold: 2. I consider this hand 'medium' strength (in between weak and strong Michaels) as too many of its values are in the short suits. I plan to back in with clubs next turn.

Bill Bennett: 2. I hate to double with the void.

John Leenders: 2. Best to show those five hearts and await further bidding.

This minority choice gets an award of 70 points. Last month I resolved to cut down on the number of readers who score over 400 on this forum, which will be hard to do if Peter Smith hands out awards of 70 points just for showing up. Still, all three bids are reasonable, so I suppose the scores are fair.

Here's the full deal, from the Hakoah congress in October:

KQ743
3
J8543
92

A96
762
10972
K74
J10852
AKJ9
6
QJ6

---
Q10854
AKQ
A10853

West North East South

Marston Thomson

pass pass 1 2

pass 3 all pass

Result: 6 tricks, NS -150

West North East South

Reynolds Rees

pass 2NT pass 5

all pass

Result: 8 tricks, NS -150

On the given auction, Thomson chose 2, and thankfully did not treat the hand as a "strong" Michaels – he passed Marston's 3 bid and watched it drift three off. At the other table, NS managed to find their best suit after the RCO 2NT opening – unfortunately much too high, 5 also going three off.

Hand Three - South deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	752
	---
	AK92
	AKQ863

West	North	East	South
			1
2	2	4	?

is a weak jump, and 2

is natural and forcing.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
5	100	52	32
5NT	90	10	0
5	60	14	18
4NT	60	14	9
6	60	5	1
6	50	5	0
6	40	0	11
4	10	0	24
5	10	0	3
5	10	0	1

Time to start cutting down those scores. This hand, donated by Michael Prescott, saw 38% of readers find bids not even considered by the panel. If you are one of these readers, take comfort in the fact that this was also the bid made at the table by a Dutch international:

Fred Altstock: 4. Good support for partner. Rather be in 4 as I can trump losing hearts.

Bob Samuels: 4. Not sure quality of partner's spade suit.

Denis Haynes: 4. I have support for spades and the void makes 20+ points.

Jameson Cole: 4. I have a good hand, but my spades are too weak to force to slam. But the fact that I show spade support may be all that partner needs to know to bid six.

There are other things partner will need to know before bidding six. He'll be wondering what will happen to all his heart, diamond and club losers. How can partner justify a second bid if he holds AQJxxx-xxx-xx-xx?

Clearly we need to find out the quality of partner's spades, but there is no obvious way to do that.

Nick Beaumont: 5. To quote Jim Borin, "I look forward to partner's explanation of this bid".

Unfortunately partner's explanation isn't coming, because there are no other 5 bidders out there.

Nigel Guthrie: 5. Who knows what these bids mean? Pass should probably be forcing, but is partner on the same wavelength? Is 4NT RKCB, or will partner read it as two places to play? 5 puts the emphasis on spades, but does that rule out other denominations? I hope not. 5 is good if it asks about trump quality, not so hot if it asks for heart control.

The most common treatment of a 5-major raise, in a competitive auction, is to ask for a control in the opponents' suit. But several people thought that treatment could not apply here.

Sartaj Hans: 5. Partner should bid 5NT with solid trumps to permit me to bid the grand. I expect partner to work out from his spades and hearts that I don't have a "two small hearts" kind of hand.

Sam Arber: 5. Ask for trump strength if partner has solid spades, eg. with AKQxxx he should bid 5NT and can still reach grand.

Alexander Cook: 5. You have no losers outside spades. If there are any diamond losers these will be discarded on the clubs. Partner is invited to bid 6 with two of the top three honours in spades and 7 with all of the top three honours in spades.

While these three may be still keeping an eye out for the grand, I get the impression that most of the 5 bidders have already decided to settle at the six-level (or lower):

Leigh Gold: 5. Anything can make here. 4NT leaves you confused when partner shows something, while 4 is simply giving up. I want to be in slam opposite two honour cards, so let's see.

Frank Campbell: 5. Asking partner to bid slam with good spades. Calculated risk but I think he has at least six of them and with AQJxx, AKJxx or KQJxx or better it is just about laydown.

Steve Hurley: 5. Partner has 5+ spades and, given the opponent's bidding, not much in hearts, so he has a lot in spades. So, how good are they partner?

Bill Bennett: 5. The spade slam is likely and partner should bid it with decent suit quality.

Ian Patterson: 5. Inviting partner to bid slam with good trumps.

How bad can partner's trumps be, when we have all the points from the other suits? If we're not going to make a serious effort to find the grand slam, put me down for the practical option:

Margaret Reid: 6. Pard should have a good hand and points in the right place.

A partner who has a good hand AND points in the right place! Wouldn't that be a great world to live in?

Here's another nice practical choice – not recommended by the textbooks, but it always works at the table and saves a lot of trouble:

Barbara Whitmee: 4NT. RKCB.

Martin Eggins: 4NT. Clearly Key Card. Expecting to be in 6 even though distribution could be wild.

Tim Trahair: 4NT. Slam in spades is a possibility as North has 10+ points and South has 19 points revalued. May need to subside in 5.

Too many people are counting points on this hand. How do you find an accurate valuation of two AKQxxx holdings? Much easier to forget points and simply count tricks (or losers).

The top score goes to the multi-purpose cuebid (and if anyone is shocked by that, welcome to your first bidding forum).

Steve Johnston: 5. Hoping to get partner to bid a grand with really good trumps.

Eric Leong: 5. With good spades partner can bid 6 after a 5 cuebid.

Ian Smith: 5. Splinter agreeing spades and inviting 6.

John Leenders: 5. A void in hearts, agreeing spades.

Craig Becconsall: 5. Shows slam interest, support for spades and heart control.

Fraser Rew: 5. Huge hand. 4NT asks for aces, and 5 is a cue but I think the heart void is more important. Would bid 5NT if we had step responses to show all three top honours, or AK with extra length; as it is, this may be a blind guess.

Richard Bowdery: 5. Nearly impossible to get this level right. Partner may have AKQxx and seven is cold on 3-2 break. AQTxx and a card and six has play, at least, but with QJTxxx and HK five is enough. Start with the ambiguous cue and hope that we can get partner to do the right thing.

This deal is from the Governor's Cup in Indonesia, and while the hand records appear to have been lost, I can tell you that partner did have solid spades, and the thirteen tricks were not hard to collect. Here is the bidding from a US vs Netherlands match:

West North East South

USA USA

1

2 2 4 5

pass 5NT pass 6

pass 6 all pass

Result: 13 tricks, NS +1460

West North East South

1

1 2 4 4

all pass

Result: 13 tricks, NS +710

North's 5NT bid was intended to show solid trumps (a treatment recommended above by Sartaj Hans and Sam Arber). But South interpreted it as "choice-of-slam" and bid 6. North pressed on with 6, but South didn't get the message.

At the other table, 2 was a transfer to spades. South now had no good option over the 4 preempt, as North could have had a much weaker hand.

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

	A2
	J87
	AQT9
	T863

West	North	East	South
		pass	pass
1	1	pass	?

A new suit is non-forcing (note that South is a passed hand). 2

would be a cue raise.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
1NT	100	43	33
2	90	19	15
2	80	9	2
2	60	19	26
Pass	20	5	14
2NT	20	5	6
2	10	0	3
Other	0	0	1

This year Australian Bridge has been featuring a series of articles by Mike Lawrence on when it is acceptable to raise immediately with secondary support. Here's a problem to see who's been paying attention.

Ian Smith: 2. I would like to have a third spade but feel doubleton ace will have to do.

Steve Johnston: 2. Least of evils – show a good 3-card raise, after all Ax is as good as xxx. Partner could now wake up and bid NT...

Alexander Cook: 2. A change of suit might see you left in a 4-2 fit, and 1NT shows a heart stopper (Jxx is not a stopper when they play five card majors). The ace-doubleton in spades makes a cue raise the least worst option here playing matchpoints.

Sam Arber: 2. Was going to bid 2 but non forcing in these notes. Choice between 1NT and 2, rather not lie about heart stopper.

The top score goes to the 1NT response. An impressive 33% of readers managed to find this bid, despite holding 11 HCP and no stopper. Either very clever, or very undisciplined (or are they both the same thing?).

Jameson Cole: 1NT. Shows values at this level, and doesn't promise a stopper.

Eric Leong: 1NT. A better matchpoint partscore is available in notrump. Also, our side may have a game.

William Striker: 1NT. 1NT does not (in my book) promise stopped hearts. Just cannot raise spades and want to show some values.

Leigh Gold: 1NT. I think 1NT is right here. In my experience Jxx is a good stopper in these situations.

Manuel Paulo: 1NT. Timid advance.

Fred Altstock: 1NT. Happy to be in a low level contract as partner is probably not that strong otherwise he would have doubled.

Robin Cross: 1NT. Into the valley of death rode the six hundred. Actually it was almost 700 men but that does not rhyme. Maybe partner has a heart stopper or the heart bidder 'thinks' that I have one. Partner can bid a second suit or rebid spades and I can either raise or give 'false' preference.

Zbych Bednarek: 1NT. I know I need a heart stopper, but this will give pard a chance to show his hand. I can't see another bid.

Ron Lel: 1NT. Should make some move on this. I wouldn't really object to a pass, the way that my current partner plays.

John Leenders: 1NT. Yes I have 11pts but other bids out of the question and 2NT a bit risky.

It's not surprising that most people were afraid to try 1NT on this hand, especially in a bidding forum, so that leaves us with some pretty ugly options.

Tim Trahair: 2. What a woeful suit!

Bob Samuels: 2. The cheapest way to show 11 points and inability to support spades at the moment.

Barbara Whitmee: 2. Showing some values, no stopper.

Richard Bowdery: 2. NF it may be, but it seems that we have to do something. Fit Non Jump for me. If partner passes we possibly have enough high card strength to go plus. I will probably raise 2 to 3.

Denis Haynes: 2. Shows a control in the suit and points enough to bid.

Martin Eggins: 2. Not perfect but I want partner to know I have 10-12 HCP. Showing that East's is the weak hand, not mine.

Ken Berry: 2. Describes my strength, and where that strength is.

Robert Black: 3. I have changed my bid since knowing 2 is a cue raise.

Frank Campbell: 2NT. This would have been a good hand to let us double but if we can't! This shows my values and shape; heart stopper is a bit dodgy but sometimes you have to take a punt.

Steve Hurley: 2NT. Best description as there is nothing else that comes close.

And finally, there's the old philosophy that if you don't have anything sensible to say... better to keep quiet and have the world think you a fool, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Margaret Reid: Pass. Can come in later if bidding progresses.

Sandra Capper: Pass. If West or East bid again, I may bid 2 or 2NT.

Craig Becconsall: Pass. West is more than likely to bid again, let's see where they go.

Bill Bennett: Pass. Game is unlikely since partner did not double, and I do not want to play in 2. I will give delayed support if there is more bidding.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Pass in tempo (or quicker). Another 10 free points (I hope). All other options are for masochists. Most opponents will reopen. Then is the time to consider your options.

When I told Nigel that he scored poorly on one of this month's problems, he tried to guess which one, but he never suspected it was this one. Probably because Pass has been the winner on a few similar problems in recent forums. I like the Pass myself, and I'm not sure why the panel rejected it so strongly.

No details of the full deal for this one – it's a made-up problem from our archives.

Hand Five - East deals, nil vul, IMPs. You are South.

	T83
	K64
	KQT74
	43

West	North	East	South
		1	pass
3 ¹	3	4	?

is a Bergen raise, showing four spades and 6-9 points.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	48	42
5	90	14	9
5	80	33	41
Dbl	60	5	8

Another hand from the Hakoah congress, this time with Marston as the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Manuel Paulo: 5. Insurance bid.

Bob Samuels: 5. Looks like a good sacrifice.

Ian Smith: 5. Feel I must compete; too weak to double but know partner has spade shortage.

John Leenders: 5. Leave the five level to opps. But not this time.

It's never this time. These rules are designed for some other hand – the hand I have is always the exception.

As it happens, the "five level belongs to the opponents" rule genuinely doesn't apply here. That rule is only for when the opponents are already at the five level. Bidding five-over-four is entirely socially acceptable (as long as it works).

Fraser Rew: 5. Pard has shown a good hand so 4 rates to be based on shape – as such, pard will have singleton (or even void) in spades. Was tempted to try 5 but that could be xxx-Ax-AKxx-Kxxx, when I don't really have a bid first time around.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. Partner is short in spades, we have at least a nine card fit, and maybe my trumps can ruff a club loser, or two.

Leigh Gold: 5. Tough choice. I expect four losers at the most, which makes the save better than -420. If partner has AQ A K this may make and if it doesn't, 4 will. If he has A instead of K then 4 is likely to be one down while 5 makes.

Martin Eggins: 5. Could be one or two light but can't find whether partner has the vital A.

Robin Cross: 5. Tweener. Between pass, 5 and slam. Partner makes a lot of tricks with AQxxxx and the diamond ace. The question is does partner hold that ace? Double game swing anyone?

Sam Arber: 5. Felt like passing but finally decided more potential gain by bidding 5. Would not be surprised if we have red 2-suiter and they have black 2-suiter.

A couple of people felt that as long as we are bidding on, we may as well be descriptive. This is clearly in preparation for action at the six-level – passing the next decision to partner just in case it is right to save over 5.

Eric Leong: 5. 5 has an outside chance of making and it could be a cheap sacrifice against 4. I bid 5 to aid partner in deciding what to bid if the opponents go to 5.

Jameson Cole: 5. Since I am a passed hand, this can only be a fit-showing raise to 5, which allows partner to better assess the hands should the opponents compete.

Zbych Bednarek: 5. Save or attack, we will see. For sure this must show heart support. If opps bid 5 I will Pass and respect partner's decision.

In the post mortem over this hand, better players than I suggested that South should have passed 4, because both contracts were failing. I disagree. While turning +50 into -50, we have given ourselves the chance that (a) 4 might have made, (b) 5 might make, or (c) the opponents will go on to 5 and fail. This sounds like a worthwhile