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 October forum

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

	92
	KQT93
	JT
	K632

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

could be three-card support.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	32	29
3	90	27	20
Pass	80	32	37
2	30	0	4
4	20	9	9
Other	0	0	1

We have a special guest panellist this month, Patrick Huang of Taiwan. Normally a member of the magazine's expert panel, he decided to donate his answers to the readers' forum this month. (OK, the truth is he forgot to submit his answers in time for the magazine, so he said we could use them here).

Our first exhibit is the most basic of bidding problems: we've found a fit, and we need to decide whether to bid game.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. You have a double fit and 7 losers so must bid game. IMO the worst bid is 3 which partner might pass with Axx-Jxx-Ax-Axxxx.

Willem Willemse: 4. Why didn't I start with a redouble (showing 8+ HCP)? I have a 7 loser hand: in IMPs good enough for game.

Barbara Whitmee: 4. Stretching but I have a seven loser hand. Would like to have the Q for this bid, but I think partner has help in clubs because East was happy doubling the opening bid, which indicates tolerance for the other suits. East could have four hearts, but I am over him with KQ1093.

Steve Hurley: 4. My loser count is 7, and partner should have a 7 loser hand – 7+7=14, and 18-14=4. I bid 4.

That's exactly what I thought when I was given the problem. But then I counted my points and chickened out, opting for this sensible compromise:

Patrick Huang: 3. This 7-loser hand is worth an invitation. Opponents should have either an 8-card spade fit or a 9-card diamond fit so I don't expect to be able to play a quiet 2 anyway. A direct 3 bid may stop them finding the diamond fit but I am not too concerned with that as we own the heart suit and they are vul.

Adriano Voscilla: 3. This invitation should direct partner to value anything he has in hearts and clubs, and only good controls in the other suits.

As it happens, North has bucketloads of values in hearts and clubs – AND magnificent controls in the other suits! But more on that later.

Amiram Millet: 3. Will help partner's evaluation.

John Leenders: 3. 2 is not forcing and East has hearts. Still 3NT may be the right contract.

Dean Eidler: 3. Not a reversion. Forcing.

I'm not sure that this is forcing, but it's clearly forward going, and very descriptive, and that's good enough for me. Another forward going bid, but not so descriptive:

Denis Haynes: 3. Confirms five hearts and max points.

Tim Andrews: 3. Some possibility of game -- so invite and show I have five hearts.

Sydney Frish: 3. To confirm five hearts and invite game -- while still giving partner a choice between the heart and NT game.

Margaret Reid: 3. Limit raise ahead of 2 -- if pard is max we should make game.

Josh Sher: 3. I hate being 2-2 in the pointed suits, but we have a double fit and a sound opening bid will usually produce four cover cards (such as AQ and two side aces). If I was 3514 or 1534 I would have just bid game.

I know what you mean – I hate it when partner opens with less than three aces! You won't enjoy Problem Three in this set.

Alexander Cook: 3. Two doubletons, a fifth heart, excellent trumps including the 10-9 and support for partner's clubs mean that this hand is worth a game invitation.

Robin Cross: 3. The system lists support doubles. So I assume that the 2 which 'could be three-card support' shows a decent three card raise without wasted values (my normal style of support double).

The footnote overrules the AB Standard system. Frequently we are given problems from real life, and in real life most people don't play AB Standard.

Ivon Chen: 3. Nine points plus two kings likely to be well placed behind East.

Ian Patterson: 3. Why didn't East support his partner's free bid? Could he have three spades and four hearts?

Very likely.

Boris Richter: 3. Showing 5+ hearts and inviting, with values in partner's club suit this hand is now worth a limit raise.

Sam Arber: 3. 7 loser hand, feel like passing but give it one more try for game especially with possible club fit.

Rex Fox: 2. With 7 loser count should try for game, 2 forcing to 3, asks for Pard with a good min like: xxx-Axxx-Kx-AQxx (gives a 50% chance for game) to accept the invitation, or bid 3 with an unsuitable hand.

Marion Carney: 3. 11 TP + North's 12 HCP = 23 minimum. So game is on if North has max HCP.

Hmmm, it seems obvious when you put it like that. Still, in the interests of diversity, I guess we should see what the cowards (sorry, I mean the cautious bidders) have to say:

Ross Best: Pass. Don't think game is likely. Might try 3 over 2.

David Matthews: Pass. East's pass, rather than 2, implies hearts, so let's just hope we can make 2.

I agree that East looks like he has four hearts here. But at least I know where they are, and mine are a lot better than his.

Fred Altstock: Pass. Can't see game on with everyone bidding so happy to stay in 2 or will go to 3 if they bid 2.

Bill Bennett: Pass. Barely enough to justify an invitation. Plus the known strength of East is behind dummy, where more tricks can be lost than in front of, if it had been at West.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. After East's takeout double, the probability of making game looks somewhat under 45%.

45%? I live for the day when one of my games has a 45% chance.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I am minimum and so is partner. If he is on the high side with four trumps we may make game but it doesn't seem very likely to me.

Terry Dunne: Pass. We'd love to play in 2 if given the chance. This is very unlikely as there is a probable double fit each way but you never know your luck. If forced, I'll bid 3 and give partner a choice. The tougher decision might be whether to double if they bid 3.

Tim Trahair: Pass. North response seems weak. We only have 10 HCP so game doesn't seem to be on.

Jameson Cole: Pass. The LAW bid. Possibly our last chance for a plus, but West might compete with a 3 call which doesn't make.

I don't think it's fair to blame the Law for this choice. Assuming both sides have 8 trumps (we could have more, they could have less), it's not unreasonable that they can make 6 tricks while we make ten. On the actual deal, it's six and eleven:

A753
A42
6
AQ754

KJ108
75
87543
108
Q64
J86
AKQ92
J9

92
KQ1093
J10
K632

South passed and made 12 tricks in 2 for +230. My boss held the North cards, so I don't want to imply in any way that his 2 bid was, say, a bit timid. And the word spineless never crossed my mind. It's just good to see him have some high cards to justify his bidding for a change.

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

	763
	AJ5
	K75
	KQ83

West	North	East	South
	1	2	dbl
pass	4	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	55	54
5	90	41	17
6	40	4	1
4NT	20	0	21
Other	0	0	7

On our next problem, South's double came in for a lot of criticism, with many players wanting to bid 3 or 3 on the first round.

Gary Lane: 5. I would have bid 3 instead of the negative double as partner now expects four hearts.

Ian Patterson: Pass. 6 might be on. What would partner have bid after 3 (instead of double)?

Willem Willemse: Pass. Did my double promise four hearts and 10+ HCP? If not I would like to cancel the double.

Willem is the proprietor of Stepbridge, Australia's online bridge club. So he is used to having an Undo button to click on. We haven't implemented the Undo function in the bidding forum yet.

Terry Dunne: 4NT. Double huh? Nice... I wonder why 3 asking for a stopper wouldn't be more appropriate. It can't be limit raise or better in this sequence. West didn't extend the preempt so partner has at least two spades, probably 2443 shape. He also has every picture card outside of spades. Ideally I would like partner to bid notrumps but I can't see how that will happen now. The one safe way to get to 6NT if it's on is to hear partner show three aces. Otherwise, if he bids 5 we will have to hope for the best in 6.

Patrick Huang: 5. Did I promise 4+ hearts with my first double? If yes, why did I choose it to get myself into this trouble. I would have bid 3 as a western cue asking spade stopper for 3NT. If 3 is a diamond raise in the system, then I'd bid 3 in preference to the double. Partner's 4 shows an unbalanced good hand but could be either 5-4, 6-4 in the red or 1-4-4-4. Since he might cue 3 with the latter I play him for long diamonds and run to the safer place. 4 may sound like a slam try in hearts.

Frank Campbell: Pass. If we are playing AB Standard why do I make bids outside the system; is it to create bidding forum problems? Double should promise four hearts playing negative doubles to 4, now we are past 3NT and I have no idea if partner's red suits are 4-4, 5-4 or whatever. We may well have the same losers wherever we play so pass.

In answer to your first question, Frank: well, yes, pretty much. Some of the toughest problems are the ones you cause yourself. The fact is that sometimes in life you face a situation where you think, "Damn, why did I make such a stupid mistake". Some of us more than others. But you still need to move forward.

Incidentally, the (nameless) man who doubled is currently in Shanghai as a member of the Australian Seniors' team, so unfortunately we can't ask him what he was thinking. Our job is just to try to clean up his mess. Or look the other way and make it partner's problem:

Josh Sher: Pass. North likely has at least two spades on this auction (due to West's pass) so that makes us less likely to want to play in the five level and less likely that partner has five diamonds (2443 or 3442 18-19 is pretty likely here). I made my bed with the negative double of 2 (actually I think I must have cut in on the hand in the middle of the auction) and now I have to live with it.

Kay O'Connor: Pass. Partner figures to have two spade losers.

Jameson Cole: Pass. We may have values for slam, but we may be on a 4-3 fit with hearts breaking badly. If pard holds Ax-KQxx-AQJxxx-x, we still aren't a favorite to make 6 or 6. I don't like 5 because pard may have 2443 shape.

David Hester: Pass. Horrible distribution outweighs extra points.

Boris Richter: Pass. This could turn out to be a very embarrassing situation, bad shape with three low ones in East's spade suit. If North is holding a singleton or an ace in the spade suit however a slam in hearts could be making. Still West did not support spades so I'm going to pass this 4 bid.

Alexander Cook: Pass. No reason to depart from the safety of a game contract for the sake of a highly speculative slam in a 4-3 fit.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. If North has a hand like xx-KQxx-Axxx-Axx (and East AKQxxx-xx-xxx-xx), the Moysian fit is our best strain.

Robin Cross: Pass. We should make 4 on 'values'. Searching for slam without a known eight card fit is a bit much.

Robin has picked the hand well; ten tricks are available on brute force, although declarer was not able to find them at the table. If partner is a poor declarer, we may need a less challenging contract:

Ross Best: 5. Slam may be a possibility but 5 not guaranteed. 5 seems better value than 4 as we may have only 4-3 heart fit and partner is likely to be forced in spades.

Nigel Guthrie: 5. Partner probably has something like x-KQx-AQJxxx-Axx. Pity to go down in what may be a 3-3 fit with 6 cold.

Steve Hurley: 5. Partner could be 65 -- unlikely. I suspect 54 and partner thinks I have hearts for the double. The leap suggests good values and slam could be well on with my hand. But how to continue? I bid 5. Partner must understand I am simply rebidding his suit and if I don't have hearts (where I would pass 4 or cue bid), I must have good values with diamonds. Partner can move if he feels so inclined.

Adriano Voscilla: 5. I expect partner to cuebid with substantial extras, so his jump should be based on shape, something like 64 or even 65. With a black ace I could try for slam, but anyway it should be better to play in diamonds.

John Leenders: 5. North has four hearts and a 4-3 fit, and four hearts with West is likely.

A few people have chosen to play partner for a strong two suiter. Apparently they found our previous bidding so traumatic, they've actually blocked the double out of their memory.

Tim Trahair: 4NT. I read North as being strong with 6-5 and therefore two or fewer cards in the black suits. So slam could be on.

Fred Altstock: 4NT. I'd say partner has a distributional hand -- could be 6-5 so slam is a possibility.

Margaret Reid: 4NT. Ask for key cards -- we have at least 6.

Rex Fox: 4NT. Pard should have a good 4 or 5 card heart support and five loser count to jump to game. With my 7 losers slam should be investigated. RKCB may not solve your problems, but nothing else springs to mind. 5 would appear to be a sign off -- probably would give the wrong message implying lack of heart honours in a three card suit, and 4 card support for diamonds.

Sam Arber: 4NT. Too good to give up on slam, partner appears to have five hearts unless 3 would be non forcing. 4NT keycard in hearts; if get 2 response could still be missing 2 aces or 2 spade losers. If more, bid 6.

Sydney Frish: 4NT. The double does imply (if not promise) four hearts -- there should be a good chance for 6 but prepared settle for 5.

David Matthews: 4. North's 4 must be a 17+ with four hearts. As I can have as few as 8 points, I have to make some sort of slam try & hope partner doesn't have two small spades.

The full deal:

5
K763
AQ843
AJ7

A102
42
J106
109542
KQJ984
Q1098
92
6

763
AJ5
K75
KQ83

Ten tricks are available in hearts, even without the heart finesse -- your only losers are two trumps and a spade. But it's never easy to play a hand when all you can think about is killing your partner, so North dropped a trick or two in the play.

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

	J54
	Q6
	AT8
	KQ964

West	North	East	South
			1
1	2	pass	?

is natural and forcing.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	40	40
2NT	90	32	20
3	60	14	5
2	40	14	22
Other	0	0	13

David Matthews: 3. There are 3 choices - 2, 3 or 3. I think 3 is the best of a bad bunch. Qx is not bad support and partner can still bid 3NT.

There are two more choices: one third of the expert panel went for 2NT, and there was also a bit of reader support for the anti-systemic pass.

But first, in keeping with the spirit of a set of problems where our predecessors have been able to do nothing right, here's a word from our friendly complaints department:

Willem Willemse: 3. Did I really open (vul and on 1st position) with an 8 loser hand? Need to explain a lot to pard.

Rex Fox: 3. Not happy with the 1 opening, 8 losers, but now have to follow through; 3 seems the least worst action, pard may even pass with 11 or 12 soft points.

Robin Cross: 3. I open about 85% of balanced 12 HCP hands. This one with Jxx spades and Qx of hearts would be in that other 15%.

So you say now -- but nobody actually passes a 12-count at the table, do they? That's why God invented the guilty conscience. I know I'd never have the discipline to pass a hand like this in real life, unless Roth himself was actually sitting behind me.

Ironically, the people who were embarrassed about the opening bid, were the ones who opted to accelerate the auction by supporting partner. If you really want to slow down an auction, nothing says "shut up partner" like rebidding your own suit:

Tim Andrews: 3. I must respond but have a minimum opening and limited support for partner.

Steve Hurley: 3. No issue here -- I have a minimum, only secondary heart support, and a suit to rebid. Partner can bid on.

Kay O'Connor: 3. Minimum, no heart support or spade stopper, genuine clubs.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Definitely 100 marks :)

Tim Trahair: 3. Shows we have 5+ clubs and no heart support. 3 would have a similar effect but encourage pard to bid 3NT with a good spade stopper. Our hand doesn't seem strong enough to encourage in this way.

Sam Arber: 3. Q6 probably not enough to raise hearts, so show five card club suit.

Jameson Cole: 3. Forcing. Shows a potential source of tricks. If pard bids 3, I'll show delayed heart support. Keeps options open for 3NT, 4, or perhaps 6.

In contrast, for those who think we haven't done enough bidding so far, it's always fun to manufacture a three-card reverse:

Frank Campbell: 3. 3NT or 4 may be possible; partner's next bid will clarify things.

And then dummy will clarify things even further -- including possibly the future of your partnership!

Next, there is the bid that takes up no space, and doesn't promise anything we don't have. Seems obvious to me, but it received only a handful of votes.

Patrick Huang: 2. I play this as just denying the ability to find other suitable calls. With genuine heart support I would support immediately or find other strong bids. All other bids are distortions (in order of preference: 2NT, 3, 3).

Margaret Reid: 2. Waiting bid -- we can play 2NT at least or 3.

Boris Richter: 2. Asking for a stopper in spades. Partner can retreat in hearts with 6 cards or in clubs with three; with stronger hands and no stopper in the opponent's suit he can cue.

Lastly, in the fine bidding forum tradition, there's the inevitable stopperless notrump:

Terry Dunne: 2NT. So many times in the past, no stopper has been sufficient to bid no trumps, so surely half a stopper will be plenty.

Alexander Cook: 2NT. The Case of The Phantom Notrump Stopper #101. If you bid 2 and partner doesn't have a stopper, then you have told the opponents that you don't have a real stopper. Bidding 2NT gives away the least amount of information to the opponents.

Amiram Millet: 2NT. Least of evil bids.

Fred Altstock: 2NT. Will invite partner to 3NT if he has a stronger hand.

Adriano Voscilla: 2NT. We have a choice between two lies, but in the case we are in a partscore, I would rather play 2NT than 3. Besides, if partner continues, he can always show his 6th heart on the way.

Manuel Paulo: 2NT. The stopper is not good enough, indeed; but my hand is balanced.

Josh Sher: 2NT. Since I have to bid something, Jxx will have to do, since showing a balanced hand and a weak NT at least gets the character of the hand across. On a lucky day partner has the other half stopper. But other good things might happen. Their suit might block. Or they might not lead it after you bid NT. As Steve Robinson is fond of saying, sometimes the act of bidding NT is its own stopper. And if partner has Axx my bidding NT will work really well!

Sydney Frish: 2NT. And 4 if partner bids 3.

John Leenders: 2NT. The bidding suggests that North will have a stopper, so 2NT is the minimum bid possible.

The one option we didn't mention is the anti-systemic pass; it received several votes, and I would have been willing to promote it if even one of them had been able to support their choice with a comment. But, unsurprisingly, they were all silent on the matter, so I can't find an excuse to give it any points.

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

	8
	KQ
	T86432
	KJ93

West	North	East	South
			pass
1	pass	2	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	73	67
2NT	60	23	15
3	40	4	0
3	30	0	17
Other	0	0	1

This problem is part of our continuing experiment to see just how bad a hand needs to get before it scores a unanimous pass. This one apparently isn't even close:

Willem Willemse: 2NT. If 2NT is a take out for the minors, then I bid 2NT, otherwise it will be a pass.

Margaret Reid: 2NT. Let's muddy the waters and play in a minor (hopefully).

Phil Houlton: 2NT. Delayed action, therefore only 4-4 in the minors is promised.

4-4 in the minors? Somehow I think that if we were 4-4 we might be closer to that unanimous panel.

Adriano Voscilla: 4. LHO, with 16-17 HCP will be forced to guess. Since people like to declare, he is going to guess right, but anyway partner will be well placed to decide.

Marion Carney: 3. Sacrifice bid, not vul; 4 is probably on.

Bill Bennett: 3. This is one of those 'blue murder' bids which leaves three at a table wondering what's in my drink. Sadly, partner will lead it if they go to 3. Pray they don't.

Lisa Simpson once said that prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel. (Yes, I know someone else probably said it first, but I only know quotes that come from The Simpsons).

Frank Campbell: 3. Who has the spades? Presumably pard and West, who may have a big two suiter. This isn't a bad hand despite the lack of diamond honours. I don't think West will pass, and I hope to muddy the waters a little.

"This isn't a bad hand despite the lack of diamond honours". There isn't really anything I can say about that assessment, so let's hear a few quick words from the majority and then move on.

David Hester: Pass. You must be joking!

Jameson Cole: Pass. 2NT or 3 is masterminding and asking to be doubled.

Patrick Huang: Pass. The auction is not dead yet and I can't find a convenient way to interfere. 2NT does show the minor but I don't like the 2-card disparity. Will reconsider the situation if partner balances with 2.

Ian Patterson: Pass. Partner still has a chance to re-open.

Rex Fox: Pass. Pard did not overcall 1, must have a horrible hand. This looks like an unsuitable hand for a sac in a minor

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. We don't want a diamond lead nor do we want to play in a 4-2 club fit. Partner has lots of spades and is probably about to protect anyway.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. You have half your points in opponents' suit.

Tim Andrews: Pass. If half my points were in diamonds I would bid them, but not with this hand.

Josh Sher: Pass. 6-4 says bid, the KQ of hearts says pass. The tie breaker is bidding the six card suit is usually much safer than bidding 2NT for the minors (imagine partner is 2-3 in the minors) and I don't want a diamond lead.

Steve Hurley: Pass. Spades are breaking poorly for them, and any 2 suited bid will give away too much information on where the spades are.

Ken Berry: Pass. How much do I want a club lead? Would like to bid 3 but too scared.

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

	2
	KQ9863
	JT72
	87

West	North	East	South
2 *	2	dbl	?

is artificial and strong.

East's double is for takeout.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
5	100	50	33
6	90	10	9
Rdbl	80	5	3
3	80	5	5
4	80	10	38
4	80	5	0
6	80	5	0
7	80	10	1
Pass	80	0	7
Other	70	0	4

After such a serious and controversial set, it's time to let our hair down with AB's annual "test your personality" quiz.

Ross Best: Pass. I'd rather keep quiet about our huge heart fit so I don't bounce them into a making slam. They may misjudge the hand if I keep quiet.

Manuel Paulo: 7. I hope we'll be five down, at most; this raise forces the opponents to make the last guess.

Barbara Whitmee: 3. Using up the bidding space.

Barbara and Manuel should have a discussion about the definition of "using up the bidding space".

Dean Eidler: 4NT. Take away their Blackwood.

Jameson Cole: 3. This splinter should help pard judge how high to sacrifice.

Several people wanted to bid spades, on the assumption (incorrect as it turns out) that the opponents have a spade contract:

Amiram Millet: 2. On the way to a heart sacrifice.

Ken Berry: 5. Would my opponents think a bid of 2 is stupid? With 5 they can't Blackwood so they have to guess too.

Alexander Cook: 4. A psyche of 4NT or 2 does look attractive however.

Zbych Bednarek: 5. I can see here three possibilities: psyche 2 (against weak opponents); pass; or jump to 5 (we may have a diamond trick to set 6).

Sam Arber: 5. Could psyche a spade bid but put them under pressure with 5 bid, may find it hard to bid spade slam if making.

David Hester: 3. Why no 'other'? I want to bid 5, bidding to the level where I don't know if I want to be doubled (-500 or 800) or outbid (-680). I expect them to have a slam which I cannot afford to sacrifice over if they bid it.

David is asking why I included no option to select "Other" in the list of available bids. The reason, of course, is because there were no other bids; I deliberately included every legal bid in the list of choices. Including Redouble, which I thought was the least likely option -- but one of the expert panel in the magazine gave it a go:

Andrew Robson: Rdbl. The more hearts I bid, the purer the opponents will think the deal is. So I'll stall with a redouble, muddying the waters. Perhaps I'm not supposed to let this affect my thoughts, but we must be aware of the possibility that partner is messing about (in which case a leap to 6 will not fill him with glee).

Frank Campbell: 4. Toyed with the thought of redoubling to see where West and partner might go but that seemed wimpish and this may even make so here goes.

The great majority went for the routine options, perhaps aware that crucial Readers' Race points are at stake. Top score, somewhat surprisingly I think, goes to the alleged Goldilocks bid:

David Matthews: 5. Let's make life difficult. 4 is not enough and 6 is too much.

Josh Sher: 5. Does my partner like to psych? There is something to be said for: (a) 4 leaving them room to stop short of slam; (b) 5 taking away Blackwood but letting them play 5; (c) 6 maximum pressure. And maybe even 7 since I strongly suspect they can make at least 6.

Sydney Frish: 5. Prepared to defend to this level anyhow, so why not take some bidding space away?

Ivon Chen: 5. 5+6 =11. Likely West has spade suit and only 5 sacrifice can block their communication. They will fear you being void in spades and bid on.

Ian Erratt: 5. This is Zia's delightful first date -- you want to do everything and do not know where to start (at least 21 options!!). Good guessing (and luck).

Tim Trahair: 5. EW have game in spades and possibly slam if they have a spade fit -- which seems very likely. One may also have a void in hearts as we have at least 11 between us. This bid tries to make it difficult for them to bid slam and will hopefully be a worthwhile sacrifice if EW only have game on. Let's hope we don't have mirror image hands which could prove very painful.

Robin Cross: 5. Let them guess the contract and level. Vulnerable the six level is a bit rich for my taste.

Rex Fox: 5. May talk them out of the grand.

Willem Willemse: 5. Put the pressure on the ops.

If you really want to put pressure on them, let's not muck around:

Phil Houlton: 6. Opps almost certainly will have 6 on, if they can find it. An immediate jump to 6 may prevent them finding it.

Steve Hurley: 6. The opposition will deal with a baby psyche of 2 so I won't even consider that. Assuming partner has a 8 loser and you a 7, the worse case scenario is 800 against 650. Otherwise, it is highly likely they will be void in hearts and some slam is on. Let them explore this at the 7 level!

Nigel Guthrie: 6. With luck this may keep them out of the grand. A close second best is pass.

Adriano Voscilla: 6. Putting the opponents in front of a triple guess, with no space at all!

Terry Dunne: 6. 6+6=12. Of course we know that they will almost certainly make slam, most likely a grand, but they will have to choose whether to take the penalty or guess which slam to bid -- and two of their three choices will be wrong!

I'm not sure that the Law of Total Tricks has a proven track record at the six level. Still a good bid though.

Lastly, here's some support for the reverse approach to preemption.

Margaret Reid: 4. Let's hope they stop in 4 and don't find their slam.

Bill Bennett: 4. Do the opponents have game on or slam? Did we just give away 800 in 4x against a possible 1430 6 or a mere 650 or 620 in 4?

Patrick Huang: 4. Give them a chance to stop at 4. If West tries 4NT, East may not know whether it's Blackwood or takeout. If I bid more the opponents maybe pushed into a makeable slam which they may not bid on their own strength.

Tim Andrews: 4. We have plenty of hearts, but little strength. Raise to 4 hoping that E/W will have difficulty finding their fit.

John Leenders: 4. North should have some values in side suits. 4 will be on anyway, so make it a bit harder to find a possible slam.

The full deal from the VCC:

J10984
A10542
4
J6

AQ5
---
AKQ98653
42
K763
J7
---
AKQ10953

2
KQ9863
J1072
87

The deal was originally reported on page 11 of the June magazine, with several pairs getting to the wrong grand slam.

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.