Thanks to all who entered the contest. We received a total of 28 entries, including those from the panelists. Please tell your friends and partners (I hope the two are not mutually exclusive) about the contest so it will continue to grow.

The hardest part of editing a bidding contest is finding suitable problem hands. As you will see, I have had to resort to blatant thievery to come up with some of the better problems for this contest. The solution is for all of you to send problem hands you encounter at the table or on the computer to me directly jmrdel@aol.com. A good problem hand is one that has at least three plausible actions. I will be happy to credit the source of any problems that are used in the contest.

Hand 1:		Auction:
Matchpoints	KQ3	North	East	South	West
Vul: None	T974			1	Pass
Dlr: South	-	1	Pass	?
You are: S	AKQ763

I guess this fits the definition of a good problem. Do we rebid clubs (to what level?), raise spades (to what level?), or reverse in that lovely heart suit? The 2 bidders opt for flexibility and feel they will be well placed no matter what partner does:

Dave Treadwell: 2. A bit light in HCP for a reverse, but the excellent distribution in view of partner’s bid sways me. If partner bids 2NT, natural, I have an easy 3NT call. If partner bids 2, showing 5+, I can raise.

Harold Jordan (and Greg Burch similarly): 2. I think this hand is worth a reverse given your excellent holding in spades. I refuse to raise spades immediately without a 4-card fit.

Tell that to:

Richard Popper: 2. This could really be a great hand in support of spades, if partner has 5. If he only has 4, 2 could be too high. I will accept a game try, but think I am too weak to bid 3 spades directly.

I don’t think you are too weak, but a jump to 3 spades should surely show 4-card support. At least 2 spades may get you to a partial that outscores a club partial. But will partner move over 2 with: : Axxxx, : xx, : Jxxx, : Jx? That club suit is just too good a source of tricks when partner has a fifth spade (or AJxx and an entry such as : J).

The 3-club bidders give a good representation of their overall strength and the good club suit. They are well placed – as long as partner bids again.

Rick Rowland: 3. If partner has either 5 spades or 4 hearts (promising 5 spades), we should be hearing about that soon. If he bids diamonds, we show spade support. If he bids no trump, we live with that. Sounds like all the bases are covered here.

Would you really expect partner to bid 3 or 3 with the example hand above?

Andy Kaufman: 2. Start with 2 and if partner returns to 2 you can invite with 3; if he bids 2 (new minor forcing) you can follow with 4 (picture jump if this is your agreement) or 4 assuming this shows spade support and short diamonds. If partner bids 2 over your 2 then you can try an invite of 3.

There may be advantages to going slowly, but I think the danger of partner passing any non-forcing bid holding enough to make game makes an ugly 2 the most attractive choice.

Hand 2:		Auction:
Board-A-Match	9	North	East	South	West
Vul: E-W	AQ976	1	Pass	?
Dlr: North	T763
You are: S	AT6

There are no guarantees that 4 will make opposite an ill-fitting minimum such as : AKx, : KJTxx, : Qxx, : xx. When this hand was actually played, 4 went down. But we don’t play results here. Almost everyone quite reasonably forced to game; the only question is whether you want to show your shortness or hear about partner’s. Most of the panelists and solvers chose to splinter:

Dave Treadwell: 3. What other choice do I have but to show partner good support with shortness in spades via my splinter.

For the Jacoby-ites (Jacobyists? Jacobins? 2NT bidders?):

That would be nice; we could bid 3 and wait for further developments. But if partner bids 3 our hand will be tough to evaluate, and if he bids 3 we are obligated to show our club control and and partner may wind up playing us for more than we have. It’s a close call, but when we can show our hand with one bid, I say go for it.

Hand 3:		Auction:
IMPs	A	North	East	South	West
Vul: N-S	J83	-	-	1	2
Dlr: South	AQ72	2	4	?
You are: S	AKQT5

More than a few panelists and solvers said "great problem" or something to that effect. When I steal, I steal from the best. This hand is from the The Bridge World, March, 1987, Problem G. The only difference is that in The Bridge World North was a passed hand. In that contest, much of the discussion centered on whether a pass by South would be forcing, and Pass received the second highest number of votes, after 5. In this contest, with the North hand unlimited, pass must be absolutely forcing. That doesn’t mean it is the best call, necessarily, since you will have a new problem over partner’s 4 or Double. Still, it is surprising that almost no panelists or solvers even considered Pass as an option.

The majority bid 5, a "high reverse," hoping that partner would figure out the best move from there:

Jess Stuart (condensed from book length): 5. Partner’s bid should show 10 points (or more – J.R.) and and 5+ spades. Perhaps he could have 8 or 9 points with more spades. Assuming he has no wasted values in hearts, he has almost all of the HCP I can’t see in my hand, perhaps even all of them. The East-West bidding sounds like it is based on the law of total tricks, getting to the 4-level with 10 trumps between them. Our side must have at least an 8-card fit. A 5 bid cannot be passed by partner since it is such a high reverse. He will like his hand with its heart shortness and take another bid. If he cue-bids hearts showing a void (or the stiff ace? – J.R.), seven may be there, but if he rebids spades or raises one of my suits to six, I will settle for a small slam.

Greg Burch (and Harold Jordan similarly): 5. I would love to bid 4NT to show my diamonds, but I am betting that most partners would think that is Blackwood for spades (me too – J.R.). If so, 5 has to be both natural AND forcing … if partner thinks 5 is a cue-bid agreeing spades, I would certainly sympathize in the post-mortem.

Well, what about 4NT? One panelist doesn’t care if it is Blackwood for spades:

I hope at least Marie can follow all of that.

The voice of experience:

Dave didn’t get all those masterpoints by accident (well, probably). I can imagine 6 getting a good matchpoint score even when 7 is cold, with many pairs going down in the wrong slam after a "scientific" auction. Still, partner needs so little for 7 …

It is impossible to know what is right on this hand. 5 must be forcing; hopefully, partner will read it as natural and not a cue bid in support of spades (as Richard Popper, another 6 bidder, suggests). I don’t like 4NT, or any bid that might imply spade support. Partner, holding : KQxxxx, : -, : Kxxx, : Jxx, will never let you play 7 of a minor in matchpoints if he thinks you have as little as Ax of spades.

The final word from an honest panelist:

Hand 4:		Auction:
IMPs	Q4	North	East	South	West
Vul: N-S	KQ74	-	-	-	2
Dlr: West	32	3	3	?
You are: S	KJ865

Just about everyone felt that a double, whatever it is called, must show cards in this situation. Some sample comments:

Several solvers indicated that their double was for penalties. Please keep the 100 points with our compliments. I guess if it is not alerted and both partners are on the same wavelength, why not? 3 doubled may be our best spot, and the rest of us are not likely to get there.

Once again, experience tells us to bid where we live:

I see the point. With a typical 2=2=6=3 shape, partner will most likely be unable to leave in the double or bid 3NT; by bidding 4 we at least give a good description of our hand. If partner turns out to be 6-4 in the minors, we strike gold.

Hand 5:		Auction:
IMPs	7	North	East	South	West
Vul: N-S	AJ4				1
Dlr: West	KJ8	Pass	Pass	?
You are: S	AK9653

Another steal from The Bridge World – November, 1987, Problem A. Do we bid 3 to show our suit and overall strength, or 2 to allow more bidding room? Do we dare double without spades? Should we take a shot at 2NT or even 3NT?

Most of the panelists and some solvers felt that 3 was on the money:

Flexibility, our old friend.

The 2 bidders did not have a lot to say, but most felt that if partner could not bid on, they were not missing anything. The problem is not only that 2 is an underbid, but as Rick Rowland pointed out, it lets the opponents back into the auction.

The doublers feel they are prepared for any eventuality:

Yes, but partner can keep correcting to spades, especially with a moderate 6-card suit, never dreaming that you don’t have at least a doubleton.

Other views:

These guys will get to 3NT when it is right – but also when it has no chance.

That’s it – no recounts or appeals to the Supreme Court allowed. Harold Jordan, by virtue of his perfect score, receives the distinct honor of being on the panel for the next contest. Thanks again to all for entering, and please remember to send in your problem hands.