This set of FORUM problems was originally published in  vol. 9 nr. 2,  March 1998.

FORUM courtesy of   infotech
directed by Jaap van der Neut   AUTOMATISERING
 
With each problem we have included  a comment (or two) from a panel member which best represents the plurality opinion. The panel consists of at least fifteen experts. The breakdown of the panel votes on each problem is shown as well.
 
w 
Board 1 SOUTH 
A Q 10 5 4 2 
A 6 2 
J 6 2 
10
S/NS 
 
 
West 

2
North 

2 
East 

Pass
South 
1 
 
Panel   choices  (%)
w 3 
2 
4 
 
58 
32 
11 
 
Director: 
3
 
Kit Woolsey: 3. Chapter one: setting the trump suit. The hand isn't good enough to bid stronger. If partner passes, 4 would usually have been very shaky.
Onno Eskes: 3. I assume 2 is forcing (as North may be shaded, following the overcall - ed.), but not game-forcing. If I bid 2, partner could conceivably throw in the towel.

w 
Board 2 
Pairs
SOUTH 
A 9 6 5 3 

Q J 9 6 4 3 
Q
N/neither 
 
 
West 

 
North 
Pass 
 
East 
2
 
South 
?
 *Dutch 2/2: 5+major plus unspecified 4+minor, 5-10 hcp 
Panel   choices  (%)
w 3 
Pass 
2 
3 
4 
 
47 
26 
21 


 
Director: 
2
 
Gaby van Dinteren: 3, planning to bid the spades too, at the three or four level. My passed partner won't go crazy that quickly unless he has a good fit, in which case I don't mind playing a high level contract.
Editor's confession: I held this hand and elected to pass over 2. When a confidently bid 4 came back to me, I bid 4, assuming partner would realize I held a two-suiter (and a weak one at that) in view of my failure to bid over 2. West doubled, but as partner held  KQ8  75  A1087  J653 he obviously saw no reason to run. With the K onside, the doubled contract was made with an overtrick.

Pass 
w 
Board 3 SOUTH 
K 8 7 3 
A 7 
Q 10 4 
9 8 6 2
W/EW 
 
 
West 
3 
North 
Double
East 
Pass
South 
?
 
Panel   choices  (%)
w 3 
3NT 
4 
Pass 
 
47 
21 
16 
11
Director: 
3
 
Jan-Willem Bomhof: 3. Questionable hand. 3NT is a gamble. Passing is an option, but could be dangerous if declarer can pull trumps in time. Only a heart lead looks winning, but can partner find it? Bidding 4 is nice to show spades and clubs, but you're too weak. Remains: 3 or 4. Overbidding (4) is expensive if a penalty double or a slam disaster ensues. The game you might miss is not vulnerable. Ergo: 3

w 
Board 4 SOUTH 

A J 8 4 
10 7 3 
A K 10 6 2
S/both 
 
 
West 

1 
North 

1
East 

Pass
South 
1 
?
 
Panel   choices  (%)
w 2 
1NT 
2 
2NT 
3 
 
42 
26 
11 

5
Director: 
2
 
Truus van der Spek: 2. If partner passes we won't miss much, and if he bids again, I have some more bidding space.
Simon de Wijs: 2. No call is entirely satisfactory, but 2 has the advantage that, at least, you show trick taking potential for 3NT.

w 
Board 5 SOUTH 
Q J 2 
10 6 4 
K 10 6 4 
K 7 6
E/NS 
 
West 
 - 
1 
Pass
North 

Double 
2
East 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass
South 
Pass 
1NT 
 
Panel   choices  (%)
w 3NT 
2 
2NT 
3 
 
47 
26 
11 
11
Director: 
2NT
 
Larry Cohen: 3NT. First, I thought of 2 (best 3-card major, having virtually denied a 4-card major with 1NT - ed.) and only then 3NT. But why would I want to suggest alternative contracts holding the 10 and 3-3-4-3-shape. 3SA seems a very descriptive bid.

w 
Board 6 
Pairs
SOUTH 
K 10 9 6 4 3 2 
8 5 3 2 

7 4
S/neither
 
West 
 - 
Pass 
5 
6 
Pass
North 

4 
Double 
Double
East 

4NT 
5 
Pass
South 
3 
Pass 
Pass 
Pass 
 
 What do you lead?


Panel   choices  (%)
w


 
42 
32 
26 
 
Director: 
x
 
Director: x. Why did partner double 5? Presumably he has enough clubs (and sufficient shortness in the red suits) to know that East would remove to 5 to let West pick a red suit, whether or not he doubles. In other words, the double of 5 asks for a club lead later on. Why did he subsequently double 6? Maybe he thinks that contract can go two down (at pairs there's a big difference between +100 and +300); or, perhaps, he was planning on bidding 5, and thinks 6 to be a save. That, too, requires good clubs: how else, with red suits in East, does he expect to make 5? After all, he won't be holding many red suit honours.

  To FORUM Index    To IMP Bridge Index