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 of Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence, Phillip Alder, Bob Jones, Marshall Miles, Frank Stewart, Eddie Kantar, Marc Smith, Eric Kokish and Zia Mahmood, as well as many top Australian players.

Scroll down to see the final scores
Submit answers for the June forum

Hand One - East deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	K832
	4
	9763
	AJ52

West	North	East	South
		1	pass
pass	dbl	pass	1
pass	2	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	54	52
3	80	25	23
Pass	40	17	8
2	10	4	3
2NT	10	0	13
3NT	0	0	1

Our first problem gives us the option of bidding notrumps with no stopper, treading water with an ambiguous cuebid, or describing our hand by bidding our suits. Must be a trick question...

Eric Leong: 3. It can't be wrong to bid a suit where the other 5/8 of your HCP are.

John Leenders: 3. Show your values and leave it to partner to bid 3NT.

Tim Trahair: 3. North has a strong hand and West has probably very little. This bid lets North try 3NT if he has a good diamond cover.

Rex Fox: 3. I would have thought of replying 2 on the previous round.

Steve Hurley: 3. My 1 was an underbid -- given partner has shown much better than an overcall, I should at least pay the courtesy of showing a bit more.

Nick Beaumont: 3. 1 was feeble.

1 seems automatic to me, but it appears a few people were considering 2. There's really no reason to jump with this hand -- partner can't possibly pass 1 if game is on. Also, don't forget partner was in balancing seat, so he could have been borrowing part of your hand in order to keep the bidding open. And just imagine how difficult the auction would be now if you were a level higher.

Manuel Paulo: 3. My hand is maximum in the context; so, despite the misfit, I show where my values are.

David Hester: 3. I must keep the bidding open, as I have shown no strength yet.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. For which, I guess, the panel will vote. A gross underbid because partner has a mountain. 3 may be the correct technical bid -- but it's unlikely to score much.

Is 3 really an underbid? You are bidding a new suit while voluntarily raising the level of the auction -- this is a very constructive move.

Jameson Cole: 3. My eight count puts me at the top of my range, so we should be in game (at least). 3 shows where I live and keeps options open for 3NT, 4, 4, 5 or slam contracts. Other bids are ambiguous or suggest weakness.

Frank Campbell: 3. I assume 2 is forcing and don't think 9 is a stopper.

I wouldn't write off that 9 so quickly. It could be useful as long as you are careful to position it properly. More on that later.

Denis Haynes: 2NT. Keeps the bidding at the two level and allows partner to bid again. Not happy but partner has an opening hand and diamond stopper(s)?

Terry Collier: 2NT. Best describes the hand.

Sydney Frish: 3NT. I couldn't find a better bid. Partner, promised 18+ HCP, so 2NT would show a weaker hand than 8 HCP. Also, if NT is our contract, it should be played from my hand to protect stoppers in spades and clubs.

There is no need to protect your AJ or K -- you are sitting over all the points, so your stoppers are already secure. Even more so if you can get East on lead, leading away from his honours. Here are some likely layouts:

Q4

9763 KT8

AJ52

AT

852 KQJ4

9763

Q5

JT97 A64

K832

Even with the 9 instead of the Q, you still might gain a trick if East leads a low one from the K10. It's these little cards you need to protect, not the aces and kings!

For those who didn't feel that 3 was a strong enough action, the cuebid was the only thing left.

Bill Bennett: 3. Game is possible, but probably only in notrump.

Sam Arber: 3. Ongoing bid. Partner may bid 3NT with half stopper. Second choice is 3.

Willem Willemse: 3. Fortunately 1 was slightly underbid -- now partner is showing a big hand it's time to wake up. If he bids 3 I'll give up.

Adriano Voscilla: 3. If partner has a diamond stopper, probably 3NT is best.

Terry Dunne: 3. We have as strong a hand as we can for our 1 bid so given partner's second bid we must have the strength for game. This is a stopper ask in this sequence rather than heart support, as a raise of hearts would be invitational.

In contrast to those who think we have underbid our hand, we'll finish with a minority option which was supported by Mike Lawrence, Ted Chadwick, Marc Smith and Marshall Miles.

Paul Tranmer: Pass. I cannot believe I bring enough to the party to make ten tricks even remotely likely, particularly as the opener is sitting over North. North's actions describe a meaty single suiter with about six tricks, so I should be able to make up the other two.

Fred Altstock: Pass. Not really interested as only possible two tricks for partner.

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

	AK4
	92
	QT7654
	QJ

West	North	East	South
	1	2	3¹
pass	4²	pass	4³
pass	5⁴	pass	?

1. Limit raise or better.

2. Cuebid.

3. Cuebid, denies heart control.

4. Cuebid, also promises heart control.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
5	100	50	49
6	80	21	25
5	70	25	13
5NT	50	0	9
6	40	0	4
5	20	4	0

A tough problem here. We have reached the 5-level, but it's still not yet clear whether we should be in game, slam, or grand. Anything other than 5 or 6 is a grand slam suggestion, and that's where the majority are headed.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. Could bid 6, but a grand slam is possible.

Jameson Cole: 5. Partner initiated this slam try, so I can't sign off with a control not shown, even though I don't like cue bidding at the five level. Partner may have something like x-Axx-AKxxx-AKxx leading to 7NT.

Alexander Cook: 5. Declarer has first and second round control in clubs, and a heart control. If declarer has AK a grand slam should be possible.

Tim Trahair: 5. Showing 2nd round control in spades and letting North decide whether to bid 6 or 7. The grand will be on if North has AK.

Terry Dunne: 6. The club suit will provide at least one and probably two discards. Partner should have either the ace or king of diamonds as well. Hopefully if he has both he will know to raise to seven.

A lot of talk there about partner having the top two diamonds, but there is a better way to get this information:

Sydney Frish: 5NT. Should be safe to go for a grand if partner has two top honours in diamonds.

Some of the 5NT bidders were concerned about whether 5 showed first round control of hearts.

Steve Hurley: 5NT. If 5 shows the A, then we are looking at 7. Over 5NT grand slam force, if partner shows two honours, I'm bidding 7.

Nick Beaumont: 5NT. Ostensibly GSF but as I have denied a heart control...

David Hester: 5NT. Hello, Josephine! I hope his heart control is guaranteed first round.

5 doesn't guarantee A, but this really shouldn't be a concern -- if partner is missing the A he should give a negative response regardless of his trump holding. Knowing there is a heart loser, he won't bid the grand unless he is working for the other side.

Manuel Paulo: 5NT. Partner should bid seven with first round control of hearts and the top diamond honours.

The 5NT bid didn't receive a single vote from the expert panel. But as far as I can tell, 5NT has only one possible flaw, pointed out in the magazine by:

Michael Ware: The problem with 5NT is partner could well bid seven holding 3343 or 4243, with no Q.

This very specific holding would leave us with only 12 tricks, which I guess is a good enough reason to reject an otherwise perfect solution. So we need a way to find either the Q or the 4th club. Addressing the club holding:

Eric Leong: 6. Partner would want to know about some club help so he can count 13 tricks in 7.

I really like the 6 bid, but the majority decided to focus on the spade holding.

Frank Campbell: 5. My QJ could be big but as I have no way to tell him I have them will cue my second spade control. Partner can use 5NT if he wants to try for the grand.

Patrice Fincias: 5. Valuable information for my partner.

Bill Bennett: 5. A second spade cue bid should indicate a strong diamond fit and enable North to decided whether or not the grand slam might be on.

Rex Fox: 5. Sounds like the heart control may be 2nd round. Partner might need to know of the 2nd spade control in order to bid 7.

Paul Tranmer: 5. I do have a small nagging doubt about the trump suit. After all, North doesn't need to hold AKxx, could be AJxx(x). If so against certain Easts I would bid 7 anyway, "knowing" the K would be finessable!

38% of the readers were not interested in the grand, but they were not very vocal about their choice. Speaking on their behalf is one of the only readers to mention the club duplication:

Willem Willemse: 5. Big risk partner has three clubs and we can't discard the losing heart and spade. On the other hand partner doesn't know that I've got 1st and 2nd control in spades. Too complicated for me -- I give up: 5.

The full deal is from the 2006 NEC Cup. It doesn't tell us much, because of the unusual nature of the 1 opening (holding five clubs). And a few of the cards got mixed up on the way to publication. But the general vibe of the thing was something like this:

T75
7
AJ83
AK762

QJ98
KT64
K2
T43
632
AQJ853
9
985

AK4
92
QT7654
QJ

West North East South

Lambardi Brenner

1 2 3

pass 4 pass 4

pass 5 pass 5

pass 6 all pass

Result: 12 tricks, NS +920

There was no danger of getting overboard on this deal, because North always knew that there was a heart loser. The hard work had already been done by the 1 opening -- the pairs who opened 1 were not able to find the slam.

Hand Three - North deals, nil vul, IMPs. You are South.

	Q732
	---
	AKQJ
	Q8543

West	North	East	South
	1	2	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	50	29
3	90	13	6
Dbl	70	29	32
Pass	20	8	10
6	20	0	1
3NT	20	0	2
2	10	0	19

Don't look so surprised, I'm sure this isn't the first time you've held AKQJ in the opponents' preempt suit. In fact if you've ever played against me, I'm sure it's happened to you more than once!

Robin Cross: 3. East has a jump overcall in diamonds?

Ken Berry: 2. Who is East? What suit quality is needed for 2?

I think 2 promises a suit headed by at least the ten. Unless somebody else has the ten, in which case it promises a suit headed by one of the lower cards.

Fred Altstock: 2. Testing if partner has spades otherwise I go back to clubs next time.

Manuel Paulo: 2. Natural and forcing; as I play it, only bidding the next suit (hearts) shows five cards.

In a set where the reader's votes matched the expert votes almost perfectly, this was the main discrepancy. 20% of readers went for 2, a bid which was not even hinted at by a member of the panel. Personally, I have never heard of this bid being made with only four cards -- I thought that was why God invented negative doubles.

Patrice Fincias: Dbl. Wait and see, partner can have four spades.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. If pard bids hearts I'll settle for 3NT; and pard will know I also have spades.

Terry Collier : Dbl. If partner bids 3 I will go 3NT; 3 I will raise to four; and over 3 I will bid five.

Sydney Frish: Dbl. On the way to a contract in Spades or 5, possibly 6.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Shows partner points and diamond stopper.

After 30 odd years of negative doubles, clearly Denis is trying to lead the trend back towards the old fashioned penalty axe. A noble calling, but I really don't think it will catch on.

Adriano Voscilla: Dbl. if partner bid hearts, I will show my spades, and if there is no fit then we shall play 3NT.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. OK provided that it promises only one major. If partner jumps to game in hearts, we can correct to his (longer) club suit. It's never right to make a negative double with support for partner, unless you can stand a penalty pass :)

That's right, if partner has a penalty pass we should get at least 1700, so the double is fairly safe in that regard. But does it only promise one major?

Frank Campbell: Pass. I need five spades to bid them and double is out with my void. Only other possibility is 3 or a cue raise but pass has a bigger potential upside depending on how partner reopens.

Sam Arber: Pass. If partner reopens then pass; if he bids 2 then 3NT; if West preempts in hearts then look for 5 or 6.

Defending 2x is really not an option. West will have no trouble running to his six card heart suit, and all you will have achieved is to muddy the auction. We have a chance right now to describe our hand, so let's not waste time.

Steve Hurley: 3. 2x in my experience will not yield enough. I expect 5 to be laydown, if not 6. 3 followed by 4 please.

Alexander Cook: 3. A trap pass may get a better result, but partner may not reopen with a double. If partner bids 3 next, I will bid 3NT.

Paul Tranmer: 3. As with Problem 2, this shows a limit raise or better in clubs. If North's next bid is 3 I'll try 3NT. If North bids 3 or 4 I'll cue bid for real next time with 4.

Jameson Cole: 3. Over 3, I'll bid 3NT. Over 3, I'll raise to 4. Over 4, I'm thinking 6.

Henri de Jong: 3. Need to find out more about partner's hand. Clearly he has some hearts.

David Hester: 3. I wanted to bid 4 to show a void, but it isn't on the list so it probably doesn't.

Dean Eidler: 4. Exclusion Key Card Blackwood.

Not actually in the system, although that's the logical interpretation of the bid. But if we included bids like this in the system, it would be like giving you the answer on a silver platter.

Without 4 available, here is a viable alternative:

Zbych Bednarek: 3. Should be shortness, agreeing clubs (if not I must change system or partner).

Tim Trahair: 3. Control bid confirming clubs as trumps and promising first round control in hearts. If North able to show first round control in spades, we can then show our diamond strength.

Terry Dunne: 3. Over whatever bid partner makes, I'll bid 4 and the picture should be clear.

Bidding 3 and following with 4 is placing a lot of faith in partner. He may think he knows what 3 means, but then 4 gives him that nagging doubt that maybe it was natural after all.

Speaking of which, we'll finish with a man whose flair for system development has probably seen him play in a cuebid or two. These days he doesn't appear to be as scientific as he once was:

Eric Leong: 6. I would bid 6. If 6 is not cold it could be a steal if East doesn't find the right opening lead.

Hand Four - East deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AT
	J9643
	KQJT4
	4

West	North	East	South
		3	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	42	31
Pass	90	37	32
3	40	13	26
Dbl	20	4	10
4	N/A	4	0
Other	0	0	1

Not a very good hand, but we do have short clubs. These days, with all these youngsters running rampant with weak six card preempts, we really can't afford to be shut out with hands like this, can we?

Robin Cross: 3. The partner with shortness in the enemy suit should strive to bid. Maybe partner will have a decent heart fit...

David Hester: 3. Dangerous, but nothing is safe including pass. I am the one with short clubs.

Bill Bennett: 3. Although the suit is poor, North will not mention hearts if I don't.

Terry Collier : 3. Not sure hearts are good enough but once again nothing is perfect.

Tim Trahair: 3. Pathetic hearts but must bid. If North bids 3, then bid 4. Perhaps 3NT would be better provided this is read as 5-5 in the lowest unbid suits -- however this does not seem to be part of the AB Forum system.

I think Tim is just trying to stir me up with this 3NT comment. Here's another one:

Sydney Frish: Pass. Would bid 3NT if by agreement this would show at least 5-5 in two of the unbid suits.

OK, maybe it's time for AB Standard to move with the times; how about starting next month, we'll officially introduce the Unusual 3NT. All 3NT bids in all auctions show 5-5 in unbid suits. Drop us a line if you're in favour.

Fred Altstock: 3. Hoping partner has a heart raise.

Eric Leong: 3. I am really rooting for partner to have a 3NT bid rather than a heart raise.

Jameson Cole: 3. 3 keeps options open for 3NT, 4, and 5. It also risks going for a number.

Terry Dunne: 3. This must be OK on strength as it was OK last month to overcall at the three level with a minimum opening bid, as this hand is. Over anything but a raise in hearts -- happy days -- it seems obvious to show diamonds next while not overstating the overall playing strength.

Martyn Rew: 3. 4 rebid over partner's expected 3.

Steve Hurley: 3. While I have a solid diamond suit, I have only one chance to show these hearts.

It does feel natural to show the major before the minor, but there are a couple of people who think they will still have time to show the hearts later:

Adriano Voscilla: 3. Planning to rebid hearts.

Sam Arber: 3. Bid the better suit and may still get a chance to bid hearts.

Margaret Reid: 3. What else is sensible?

Concealing a five card major is always dangerous. Take a look at Peter Gill's hand from the Gold Coast final (page 11 of the current issue of AB). He bid and rebid a six card club suit holding a 1516 12-count, missing a cold 4 contract.

Unable to decide which red suit to show, a few readers decided to bring spades into the picture:

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Shows points and keeps the bidding at the three level.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. On a good day partner will bid a red suit or 3NT but if he does bid spades I will bid 4 which should tell him I also have hearts. Don't think my hand or my hearts are good enough to bid both suits.

Paul Tranmer: Dbl. For takeout. The only time that can go wrong is is North bids spades, but even then more often than not North will hold five. Finally, passing in this position is hugely anti-percentage, as what is North supposed to do holding Kxx-Axxx-xxx-xxx after the auction 3 - pass - pass - ?

On the actual deal, the correct contract was actually in spades, so Paul's comment was right on target. Clearly partner will never be able to take action with that balanced hand -- and if partner is unbalanced, then the auction is unlikely to still be at the three level when it gets to him. But there are plenty of votes for leaving the tough decisions for someone else.

Patrice Fincias: Pass. I am not playing alone.

John Leenders: Pass. Partner is still there and any bid could be a disaster.

If you're afraid of getting injured, John, maybe you should consider a less violent sport. Half the fun is in knowing there's a chance your head might get taken off!

Alexander Cook: Pass. A better hand is needed to overcall or double at the three level vulnerable. You can't overcall with lousy hearts and the shape is not quite there for a sub-standard double.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Second seat actions should be sound.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. If West bids 3NT, I can bid 4 to show a two suiter.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. Wait and see; I am not strong enough to overcall at the three-level.

A recent partner of mine taught me that it's OK to make a questionable bid, as long as the bid has only one flaw. Here, there are multiple flaws with all bids, so I do have a lot of sympathy for the passers. Of course, that didn't stop me from bidding 3 at the table -- I'm a slow learner.

Henri de Jong: 3. On distributional hands keep it simple.

The full deal is from the 2005 State Teams at the NSWBA (warning: the following bidding may be offensive to some viewers).

	QJ9532 K87 A3 A7
74 AQ5 7652 10863		K86 102 98 KQJ952
	A10 J9643 KQJ104 4

West	North	East	South
		3	3
5	5	6	dbl
pass	6	all pass

Result: 11 tricks, NS -100

Obviously East's 6 bid was insane, but all I can say is that he knew his customer, and North didn't disappoint him.

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

	QT832
	764
	Q
	AK83

West	North	East	South
	1	pass	1
pass	3	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	38	16
3NT	90	33	44
3	80	17	9
4	60	4	29
4	60	8	1
Other	0	0	1

Although I probably would have bid 3NT myself, I'm quite pleased to see another bid get the top score on this problem. If 3NT always gets the top vote, the bidding forum starts to get a bit predictable. Here are the readers who went for the obvious BF winner (with not a single person blaming their choice on you-know-who):

Paul Tranmer: 3NT. At last, an easy one! Given the 1 opening bid, I find it inconceivable that North will not hold enough in hearts to stop the suit. Could 5 be a better contract? Possibly so, if North held A-Kxx-AKJ10xx-Qxx but even then 3NT will be cold if the A is right or the hearts break.

Denis Haynes: 3NT. Partner has opened and must have some points in the majors.

Sydney Frish: 3NT. Partner refused spades but with close to 30 HCP we must be at least in game. The high singleton in partner's suit should also help.

Terry Dunne: 3NT. Six diamonds, two clubs, and partner must have an extra trick somewhere, hopefully in hearts!

Fred Altstock: 3NT. Partner is forcing to something -- hopefully game.

3 is actually not forcing here (although it would only ever be passed with a bare minimum). With a hand too strong for 3, always a problem in standard bidding, you have to make up something else. A common treatment is to play an artificial 3NT rebid to show that kind of hand, because a natural 3NT is rarely needed in this auction.

Alexander Cook: 3NT. 3NT is the most likely spot. Q will be of use to partner, and he should have a heart stopper amongst his 16-18 HCP.

Bill Bennett: 3NT. There should be enough points, and if North does not support my spades, I hope he has hearts stopped.

Robin Cross: 3NT. If 3NT is an option, that is one reason to bid 3NT. Who needs a heart stopper?

David Hester: 3NT. He must have some hearts, but I have wrongsided the contract. 3 would avoid this, but he might have no club stop and too many hearts.

Tim Trahair: 3NT. Assume North has some values in hearts. Would like North to bid NT to protect his heart holding but can't work out how to achieve this.

The desire to have North play the hand was one reason for rejecting 3NT, but there is a simple way to deal with this problem:

Adriano Voscilla: 3. Showing the fifth spade, and hoping to rightside the probable 3NT contract.

Steve Hurley: 3. I have another spade and I'm not a minimum -- your go partner.

John Leenders: 3. Do not want to go past 3NT. Show fifth spade and deny heart stop.

Willem Willemse: 3. A heart stopper with partner 3NT will have a good chance. The only way to find out is to show my five spades. Awful hand, maybe it was better to pass.

The other reason for rejecting 3NT was because of higher ambitions.

Eric Leong: 4. Time to let partner know that 6 is a possibility by showing something in clubs.

Sam Arber: 4. 3NT gives up on slam. It's IMPs, so look for game or slam in minor.

Terry Collier : 4. Unfortunately cuts out 3NT but leaves 4 and 5 still viable.

Zbych Bednarek: 4. Control bid, agreeing diamonds. Seems better play in suit than notrump.

Jameson Cole: 4. Tough problem. Partner almost certainly has a heart stopper (ace or king). If I bid 3NT, I give up on a spade or club game. If I bid 4, then 3NT might be the only game that makes. If I bid 3, partner might thing it non-forcing. If I bid 3, that's weird.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. If partner bids a firm 4NT, then pass. 4 has the right idea but denies club control. 3NT is a bit of gamble and may wrong-side that contract. 3 is a daft self-trap -- how can you continue sensibly over partner's 3NT?

I think the 3 bidders are not planning to continue over partner's 3NT. But the real problem with 3 is no one knows whether it shows hearts or denies them.

Rex Fox: 3. This would be useful asking for a stopper as pard with a 4 card heart suit would have bid 2. If pard has a stopper, 3NT should have chances.

Frank Campbell: 3. If partner doesn't realise this is a stopper ask, it may stop the opponents from leading them.

But expect a director call after partner explains your call as natural. And if you're using screens, you'll have to tell the opponents about the heart weakness yourself!

The top scores for the month are listed below. Note that these scores will differ slightly from those published in the magazine. This is because several of the bids received from readers are not found by any members of the expert panel, and have a score of zero at the time of printing. Once all the reader's votes are in, including the occasional appeal, these responses are sometimes upgraded causing changes to the scores and rankings.