BBO Prime bidders challenge: September Panel Comments

Conducted by Marc Smith

Set 21-9 – August-September 2021

Welcome to the ninth BBO Prime Bidding Challenge. Our guest panelist this month is Hanoi Rondón, a bridge teacher who has been in love with the game from the moment he discovered his first bridge article in a newspaper some 27 years ago. Originally from Venezuela, he currently lives in Santiago, Chile. He teaches bridge online and has a YouTube channel called ‘Bridge Entretenido’. His blog, discussing the upcoming month’s problems, can be found in the Newsfeed on BBO.

The panel produces a majority on only five of the eight problems this month, although there are also significant minority factions for alternative actions on all eight deals. The competition entrants are even more split, with none of the problems producing a majority vote, although the largest faction did score 10 on four of the eight problems. Finally, a word of warning as we had a record number of votes for illegal bids this month – be careful, as an insufficient bid or trying to double your partner automatically scores a zero.

Let’s get on with the debate.


3 NT1076
5 :diamonds:8429
4 :diamonds:6320
2 NT515
3 :diamonds:2018
6 :diamonds:001
4 :clubs:001
Dbl (illegal)001

No majority on the panel, but a clear favorite nonetheless. The competition entrants are split between a number of actions, but with a record small number (just 6%) voting for the experts’ first choice. Let’s hear what the panel has to say.

FREDIN: 3NT. Trying to buy it undoubled. Who knows what they can make!
MEYERS: 3NT. I think they have a game and the vulnerability is right.
SONTAG: 3NT. It’s only 50 a trick.
KLUKOWSKI: 3NT. Why not! If you force me to bid some diamonds, I’d go for 3. 4 pushes them into a game, and I rather don’t want them to be there.
CHAGAS: 3NT. My hand is horrible and any sacrifice will be expensive. I don’t think they have a slam yet so I will just create a bit of confusion. Maybe all pass? If they double and I run, it is possible they will double me at a lower level or let me play… I will always have the five-level doubled at my disposal
COHEN: 3NT. Usually, I just raise diamonds pre-emptively with this type of hand, but I think there is a chance to buy it here and pay 50 a trick.

This month’s guest panelist sums up the case for the largest faction on the panel.

RONDON: 3NT. We can seize this opportunity to try to trick opponents into staying out of the bidding. They surely have a great fit somewhere, but this will make it harder to find. People tend to respect no-trumps more than they do suit raises.

Andrew tried another form of subterfuge…

ROBSON: 2NT. This is mainly a semi-bluff. I really don’t like 4, which announces weakness.

The rest all raise diamonds immediately…

MARSTON: 5. This could be too much, but I am not willing to defend four-of-a-major.
WANG: 4. We have an 11-card fit in diamonds, so I can bid at least to the four-level.
DE WIJS: 5. It depends somewhat on partnership style, but I am assuming partner has six diamonds here. This might well be the wrong bid (-800) but it could also push them overboard (+100 vs 5M).
BROCK: 4. This is the bid that usually makes it hardest for them.

That is not a universally-held opinion.

LARSSON: 5. Not especially attractive, but at least they have to guess, and I take away the opportunity for North to show both Majors.
BIRD: 4. 3 makes life simple for N/S. 5 gives them an easy double. Bidding 4 may give them a problem. If either opponent bids game, either directly or in response to a double, their partner will not have a clear view of the strength opposite.

Tim sums up for the diamond bidders.

COPE: 5. At this vulnerability, I am prepared to play at the five-level but, with my 2½ defensive tricks, I will let them play five-of-a-major. The alternative is some sort of fancy possibility such as 2NT or 3NT, which may talk the opposition out of bidding, or even some sort of psyche. My guess, however, is that if I bid 5 my LHO will double for takeout and RHO will bid 5M, where I will take my chances.

Although everyone agrees that 3 is not enough, I awarded it a couple of token marks as it is still marginally better than passing. At the table, jumps to 4 were doubled by North, leading to 5♣ by South. Both 4♠ and 5♣ were making, and saving in 5 costs 500, so saves a couple of IMPs. Partner had xx/Axx/AJ10xxx/xx and the winning action, found at one table, was the direct jump to 3NT, which silenced North on his 5-4-0-4 12-count. The defenders cashed the first five clubs and could have beaten it by three for +150 by switching to a spade, but ended with +50 when South switched to a heart instead. Well done to the largest group on the panel for finding the imaginative and winning action although, as both Tim and Simon suggest, perhaps an immediate 5 may push the opponents into giving you a plus score.


5 :hearts:6334
6 :hearts:418
4 NT2015
5 :clubs:001
5 :diamonds:001
Dbl (illegal)004
4 :hearts: (insufficient)002

This deal produced the largest majority of the month from the panel, and more than two-thirds of competitors also opted for one of the two highest-scoring actions. Some readers presumably thought RHO had raised to 4♠, though, as they tried to make a takeout double of partner’s jump to game. A number of panelists commented that they did not like the original double, but most were not inclined to try to undo the damage.

MEYERS: Pass. First, I would not double 1: I would have just bid 1. But, since the problem presented has me double, I would pass 4♠. I don’t think this is close.
ROBSON: Pass. I dislike double, for this sort of reason. I would have jumped to 4, planning to double 4♠.
LARSSON: Pass. I would not have doubled the first time: I prefer either 1 or 4.
MARSTON: Pass. I wish I had overcalled 1.
COPE: Pass. I am not sure if I am forced to answer this question, as you have made me double the opening bid when any sane person would have overcalled 1. There is no reason to suggest that partner’s 4♠ bid is not natural, with maybe something like QJ109xxx/xx/x/Kxx, so I table dummy and hope he can scramble enough tricks.
CHAGAS: Pass: I wouldn’t have doubled and now I must trust/hope partner knows what he is doing.

Alan earns the ‘Comment of the Month’ award for his complaint:

SONTAG: Pass. “Here’s another fine mess you’ve got me into”: Laurel and Hardy must have doubled 1.

Of course, the problem-setter can never win, as our next panelist and others have previously complained on hands not unlike this that they were too strong for an overcall and should have started with a double.

KLUKOWSKI: Pass. Partner has so many spades that he knows I have a shortness there, so nowhere to go.
RONDON: Pass: I don’t think it is safe to go to the five-level. We might have made a mistake by doubling first, but being here, I think it is better to stay as low as we can.
BIRD: Pass. Psychic 1♠ bids have become a distant memory, ever since they became forcing. Partner was not expecting a singleton spade in my hand, so he may have read North’s bid as a psyche. We might have one or more spade losers. How will a continuation of 5♣-5-5 help us to read the trump situation?

Peter sums up the feeling of the majority, I suspect.

FREDIN: Pass. I hope partner knows what he is doing!

The rest all elect to bid their long suit anyway…

DE WIJS: 5. Yes, I know; partner wants to play 4♠ only, so this could be very wrong. Still, I cannot bring myself to make a takeout double and then put this hand down as dummy in 4♠.
COHEN: 5. The same bid I was committed to even had LHO not bid spades.
BROCK: 5. I can’t tell you how much I hate that double. Only the world’s #1-ranked Women player was more ambitious.
WANG: 6. I want to make it.

I could have set partner’s hand as the problem, but I suspect a large majority would have jumped to 4♠, despite North bidding the suit. East had AKQJxxx/xx/x/10xx, so 6♠ just needed trumps not 5-0 (they weren’t). However, heart contracts are in trouble if the defenders either lead a spade or start with a high diamond and switch to spades, cutting you off from dummy. Bidding the slam is clearly not possible, but the majority choice does at least ensure a plus score, which may be enough to earn a swing.


4 NT8414
3 NT607
4 :clubs:4225
4 :diamonds:404
4 :spades:003
5 :clubs:003
3 :clubs: (insufficient) 001

The first question seems to be “Is this hand good enough to bid game?” Presumably answering that question negatively, a majority on the panel (and the largest group of readers for any action this month) elected to pass and defend 3♠-X with varying degrees of enthusiasm:

MARSTON: Pass. Possibly wrong, but it has more upside than bidding.
CHAGAS: Pass: Risky but I can’t see anything good in bidding 4♣…

Both Tim and Hanoi have much higher expectations.

COPE: Pass. Opposite any typical strong 1444 that partner may have, we can expect +500 without any certainty of game making our way.
RONDON: Pass. There is a strange pleasure in penalizing vulnerable opponents. I think +500 is more likely than a slam our way, so I’ll go for the blood.
COHEN: Pass. You have to make them pay once in a while for modern obstructive bidding.
WANG: Pass. I don’t think they can make 3♠-X.
BROCK: Pass. I wrote 4NT first, and it does depend a bit on my opponents. But a lot of the time the opponents will be in a 5-3 fit, and then I really would prefer to defend.
BIRD: Pass. I was not strong enough for a responsive double, and my defense outweighs my playing strength. 3NT might be read as Unusual, but who wants to play in four-of-a-minor?

Sadly, David and Andrew were the only panelists to address a key question: is 3NT ‘pick-a-minor’ in this auction. It seems that it should be, as you would surely pass and collect a big penalty if you had a natural 3NT bid.

ROBSON: Pass. Paper tiger, backed up by the law (unless it’s an 18-trick deal in which case I may be slightly wrong). Another problem with bidding is … what do I bid? I could try 3NT, and explain afterwards why it can’t logically be natural (failing to recall the recent occasion on which I bid 3NT with ♠AQ and a side J10xxx – “of course it’s natural, 3NT always is etc etc”).

If 3NT was not natural, it would clearly be preferable to randomly picking a minor at the four-level, so it would seem that neither Alan nor Jill think that is an option:

SONTAG: 4♣. This is an obvious pass at matchpoints but, in my opinion, it is too dangerous at IMPs.
MEYERS:4♣. IMO, I don’t have enough to bid a game. Give me the K too, and I would bid 4NT, pick a minor.

The rest all thought they had enough to bid game:

LARSSON: 4NT. Pick a minor-suit game.
KLUKOWSKI: 4NT. A little overbid, perhaps, but at least a guarantee that we will play the right suit in case partner has 1543/1453.
FREDIN: 4NT. I might end up in the wrong minor if I bid 4m.

Hopefully we can make game in one of the minors.
We see plenty of poor predictions by panelists, but Simon is quite right this time.

DE WIJS: 4NT. I am expecting a majority for pass, but that’s not for me.

Partner had Q/AKJx/AQxxx/QJx. In the Alt, one West bid 4c (-100) and the other 4NT, (+600 in 5). You can just beat 3♠-X on accurate defense. (South is 6-1-2-4, so partner must switch to a trump after cashing one high heart. He can then win the second round of clubs and get you in with the K to play a second trump, holding declarer to 6♠, the ♣A and one club ruff). That seems like a tough way to get +200, particularly when you have a comfortable +400 available, so a moral victory for the 4NT bidders on this one.


3 :spades:8425
3 NT6219
4 :spades:4114
4 :diamonds:008

The panel expresses a clear opinion, with the majority choosing to play for penalties, and the largest group of competitors (just) agrees. Of the remainder, most do not think the hand worth forcing to game. Let’s hear what they all have to say:

MARSTON: Pass. I am going to pass partner’s re-opening double. It should be a good penalty, especially if 4♠ is making.
LARSSON: Pass. Going for blood, I pass.
FREDIN: Pass. Hopefully, they are going for a number.

They would be, but it’s -670 on this layout. Not that Gabriel’s wishes are likely to be fulfilled…

CHAGAS: Pass. My third pass in a row. Hoping for a reopening double.
ROBSON: Pass. Surely, we have to go for blood here. If partner passes it out, he is minimum with two diamonds, and defending 3 undoubled will be fine.

Although passing for now, Michal, Tim and Hanoi all consider which game might be best…

KLUKOWSKI: Pass. Again, why not? It’s the only vulnerability at which I’d go for a pass. If partner reopens with double, I pass, and over 3 I think I’d go for 3NT, but it’s not so clear.
COPE: Pass. Then either pass partner’s reopening double or, if he bids 3M, have a shot at 4♠. Trying 3NT is too unilateral and raising spades immediately will not describe the nature of my hand, so I’ll take the money, especially with bad breaks in the offing.
RONDON: Pass: This is a great hand for penalizing again; 3NT looks like the best shot with our hand but, if we can make that, we can get more by passing and passing again after partner’s double. This will be the third pass from me this week, but if it worked two months ago, it could surely work again.

Some are more skeptical of Greeks bearing gifts…

MEYERS: 3♠. My RHO has volunteered 3 vulnerable against not, so I think they have a twist hand, something like x/AQxx/QJ10xxxx/x. I have no guarantee of beating 3

BIRD: 3♠. I am rather heavy for this, but partner is unlikely to hold more than one diamond, so my K is not pulling its full weight on offense. Also, South’s bid, when vulnerable, suggests that all the breaks (particularly in spades) will be bad.
COHEN: 3♠. A little heavy, but a lot of my high cards are likely opposite partner’s shortness and bad breaks loom.

Just a couple of panellists bid game.

WANG: 3NT. I think 3NT is better than 4♠ .
BROCK: 3NT. Surely, more likely to make than 4♠.

And Simon is on his own.

DE WIJS: 4♠. Inviting would be perfect, but 3♠ here is purely competitive so I am rounding up.

Partner had AKQxxx/xx/—/QJ10xx. 4♠ is unlucky to go down – South cashes his singleton ♣A, plays a heart to his partner’s A-K, and gets a ruff with his singleton spade. Against 3-X, you make just a spade and three trumps, but would partner reopen with a double on that? Probably not.


3 :spades:10633
3 NT9611
4 NT711
4 :diamonds:5131
4 :spades:007
4 :hearts:001
5 :diamonds:001
Dbl (illegal)001
2 :spades: (insufficient)001

The panel is evenly split between two actions. The competitors are also divided, but only one of their main choices coincides with the experts’ selection. Let’s see who produces the most convincing argument.

KLUKOWSKI: 3NT. A totally random hand, but because my RHO didn’t bid anything, my choice is 3NT.
CHAGAS: 3NT. I don’t like passing and, as South didn’t support, I expect to get some spade help from partner.

Tim points out the main problem with one of the readers’ main choices…

COPE: 3NT. Time to gamble. I have too much to pass and will risk that we have a spade stopper. We can all make up hands where 7♣ might be cold but, if I advance with 4, what am I left with if partner just bids the inevitable 4?

COHEN: 3NT. Preparing my apology if they take the first six spade tricks.
MARSTON: 3NT. Waiting for dummy with anticipation.
WANG: 3NT. It is too hard. Which bid is right, 3♠ or 3NT? I would bid 3NT at the table.

And now those on the other side of the fence…

ROBSON: 3♠. First message – bid 3NT if you can.
FREDIN: 3♠. Looking for 3NT.
LARSSON: 3♠. A direct 3NT could certainty be right.
BROCK: 3♠. I don’t think this shows heart support at this level. 3NT looks best if partner can help in spades.
RONDON: 3♠. I hope the cue-bid is not taken as fit-showing for partner’s hearts. This may get us to 3NT or 5m if partner describes his hand. I’ll have to pass 4, but there are more possibilities of getting to the best contract.

Let’s finish with the mavericks:

DE WIJS: 4NT. Pick a minor. For RKC I would first support hearts (cue-bid or 4♣ convention, whichever is the system).
MEYERS: 4. I think 3NT is a close second, but that could be so wrong.

Are you going to pass partner’s 4 rebid or try 5♣, though? BIRD: Pass. Partner will usually hold six hearts, so I won’t gamble on finding a 5-4 minor-suit fit.
I think the 3♠ bidders just edge it because that choice may lead to playing 3NT or 5m, any of which could be right, whereas bidding 3NT is likely to end the auction, rightly or wrongly. As for the minority choices, Simon’s 4NT should get you to the right minor-suit game if there is such a thing. Only Jill and David are at risk of losing a game swing. Partner had Q/AKJxx/xxx/AJxx so game in either minor is cold, and slam only relies on picking up the minors for no loss. 3NT is also making too, thanks to partner’s half stop. At the table in the Alt, one West passed 3 (+140), one tried 3♠ and then raised East’s 4♣ to game (+620).


3 :spades:101120
4 :diamonds:7212
5 :diamonds:615
3 :diamonds:5132
3 NT2011
4 :hearts: 008
3 :hearts: 004
6 :diamonds:002
6 :hearts: 001
3 :clubs: 001

This deal produces another decisive majority from the panel, as well as the largest selection of options from readers. However, the largest group (nearly a third of all competition entrants) chooses an action that is widely derided as wholly inadequate by most of our experts. Let’s hear why.

BIRD: 3♠. 3 is not (nearly) enough, and 4 might sound like a single-suiter. If I show extra strength with 3♠ and then bid 4, denying clubs, we have more chance of playing in hearts when that is right.
BROCK: 3♠. Presumably, partner will now tell me which of the alternatives he has. I am prepared to play 4 or 5, depending.
MEYERS: 3♠. I love my hand, whether partner has just long hearts or if partner has diamonds. If partner bids 4♣, I will bid 4 and she should get the picture.
COPE: 3♠. If partner has two places to play, presumably they will start by bidding 4♣ and I can then bid 4. If partner is weak in hearts, he’ll bid his suit now and I will take my shot there.
DE WIJS: 3♠. I plan to remove 4♣ to 4 and hope partner won’t pass that.
LARSSON: 3♠. Let’s keep the force going.
COHEN: 3♠. Let’s torture partner some more. When J-x-x-x and say Q-x gives us play for slam, how can I afford not to drive to game? Or, how about an unlikely 5-4 in the minors, when 5 should be laydown.
SONTAG: 3♠. If partner has hearts, he should bid them now.
RONDON: 3♠. I’m not playing a part-score here, so I might as well get to 5 if partner doesn’t have long hearts. I suppose, 3♠-4♣-4 will get partner to bid 5 if he holds the minors.
ROBSON: 3♠. It seems to cover all bases. As long as partner isn’t very weak with only clubs, we’re in business.

Michal sums up the case for the majority.

Michal KLUKOWSKI: 3♠. It seems like a good idea to find out what partner has to offer. Over the expected 4♣ probably 4, I wish it shows for him an almost game-forcing hand with diamonds and some hearts.

There were just a few who bid diamonds at various levels…
WANG: 3. If partner bids 3, I will raise to 4.

Indeed, but if he has a diamond fit, will he not pass?
FREDIN: 4. Tuff problem. I hope partner will understand that I also having four hearts. I could have jumped to 4 instead of making the second double otherwise.

Perhaps, although 3♠ first does seem to make it clear you want to play in one of the red-suit games.

MARSTON: 4. This should get us to the right red-suit game. I am giving up on slam.

And Gabriel puts all of his eggs into the diamond basket…
CHAGAS: 5: And pray partner will know what to do.

Partner had xx/xxx/J10xx/Qxxx and he will clearly pass if you bid just 3. Of course, 5 is an easy make and even twelve tricks are possible if you can avoid two trump losers (which was possible at the table, as South had the singleton Q).


4 :hearts:10736
3 NT515
4 :diamonds:002
3 :hearts: (insufficient)002

This deal produced a clear favorite, although no majority on the panel. The competition entrants were also split between the same three primary choices. The debate rates to be lively on this one and we start with the hawks…

LARSSON: 4. I suppose I should pass, but I am bidding 4 to protect my spade holding and hope for the best.
WANG: 4. I want to protect the position of the ♠K.
COPE: 4. Not with any confidence, but at least this is protecting my ♠K. I know partner does not promise four hearts on this auction, but there is a high probability that they will have them. The alternate of a responsive double by me would tend to deny four hearts and, perhaps more importantly, is likely to wrongside the contract.
MARSTON: 4. Happy to overbid by one trick in competition.
DE WIJS: 4.I considered double followed by 4, but I don’t see us making 5m so I am keeping it simple.
KLUKOWSKI: 4. Pass is soft and 4 is aggressive, maybe even dumb, but bridge is a bidders’ game, so 4 is my choice.
CHAGAS: 4. A responsive double usually denies hearts.

And, now for the doves.

BIRD: Pass. Without the ♠K, a pass would be obvious. With it, my Pass may miss a good game if partner has the ♠A and a few extra points. Call this Bird a chicken, but I don’t like the odds.
ROBSON: Pass. Sometimes you have to consider ♠ K-x is a bad value for acting, however you act. If you push the oppo into a thin game, they’ll probably make it; if they defend your bid, they’ll probably get you down. Your hand is poor in terms of shape and location of values.
FREDIN: Pass. Hoping to go plus.
RONDON: Pass: I can bid an easy 4 if partner doubles again. A responsive double here exposes the ♠K to the opening lead, turning my hand into an effective 7-count, and bidding 4 right away is too much with such a balanced collection.

And then there are those trying to straddle the fence…

MEYERS: Dbl. I sigh and make a responsive double, although it is reasonable to bid 4 too.
BROCK: Dbl. You make the final mistake partner!

Just one lonesome hawk this time…

Larry COHEN: 3NT. Even if down, it may be a good save against -140. Maybe partner has the miracle hand or they make the wrong lead or something…

…And Larry hits the jackpot this time: partner had A/Qxx/AJxx/AQ9xx, so 3NT was an easy make. Those opting for a responsive double might also score well. If partner can find a pass, you’ll collect an easy +500. With the double implying minors, though, he is perhaps more likely to bid 4NT to try to get you to the right minor. With the minor-suit finesses rating to be onside, game in either suit is playable. Those bidding 4 are probably the only ones going minus, as you cannot avoid losing a club and three trump tricks in that contract.


5 :diamonds:10717
6 :spades:9322
5 :clubs:715
5 :hearts:710
4 NT3028
5 :spades:203
Dbl (illegal)002
4 :hearts: (insufficient)001

A tough deal for the competition entrants, with nearly a third choosing Blackwood, a choice not mentioned by a single panelist. There was no overall majority on the panel, but a clear favorite still emerged. With 80% choosing to bid on, the Pass is also downgraded in the marking. Let’s hear what the experts have to say.

ROBSON: 5. I fancy club shortage opposite, which hopefully this bid focuses upon.
BROCK: 5. I don’t think I’ve ever done this! Usually, I either bid slam or not. But here it’s hard to believe we have more than two club losers whatever partner has, so I am prepared to insist on slam if he has a club control.
LARSSON: 5. Considering I have bid on every board so far, I see no reason to stop now so I make a try with 5.
DE WIJS: 5.Cuebid, denying a club cue. Sure, 5♠ down one is possible but, according to Zia, you cannot pass if a grand slam is possible.

David BIRD: 5. A control-bid that denies a club control. That’s perfect, in my eyes, whatever the Director may say.
He says you can have 10 marks this time, David, although you should not take that as meaning he necessarily agrees with your bid.

RONDON: 5. A little science feels better than the bolder 6xs bid. We might get a needed club lead this way, too.
KLUKOWSKI: 5. This surely highlights the need for a club control. Second choice, 6♠.

So what of that alternative jump to 6♠?

WANG: 6♠. Normally partner has eight tricks, so it’s worth a try.
FREDIN: 6♠. Who can figure this out?
COHEN: 6♠. Just a guess, without helping them on lead. Partner is vulnerable in second seat; opposite eight good spades and a singleton club, we are fine unless they lead a heart and partner has more than one.

Yes, with seven of them we can reasonably guess that partner will be short in clubs. However, the direct jump to slam may also work in practice even when partner has something like AJxxxxxx/Kx/x/Jx: after all, why should South lead a club from, say, K-x or A-Q-x and, of course, when he has K-Q-x North’s singleton ace stops them cashing two tricks.

A couple of panelist also moved forward with methods of their own that readers may find interesting:

SONTAG: 5♣. This is asking for a club control. The downside is that it may help the defense find correct opening lead.
COPE: 5. To bid or not to bid, that is the question, and a lot will depend on partner’s style for a 4♠ opening and on your partnership’s agreements over such an opening. Since partner is unlikely to have much outside the spade suit other than distribution, my own agreements here are to play one-under cue bids, meaning that I cue the suit below the one where I am interested in partner having control. If partner has the perfect hand, such as AQJxxxxx/xx/xxx/–, we may be laydown for a grand slam. I assume the majority answer will be 5, denying a club control, but I prefer my own methods, to focus in on what I need.

There were just three who elected to take the sure plus score in game:

MARSTON: Pass. Yes, we may have a slam, but North might also make a protective double.

This isn’t the Christmas issue, Paul.

CHAGAS: Pass. I am a natural pessimist.

I don’t believe that for a moment, Gabriel.

MEYERS: Pass. I expect something distributional and pre-emptive like QJ10xxxx/xx/Qxxx/–, so even opposite a club void the five-level is not safe.

Partner had AJ109xxxx/x/J10xx/– so 6♠ was excellent, just losing a diamond.

For the second time this year, the guest panelist outscores all of our experts. Well done to Hanoi, who produced an exemplary score of 78/80. He will be back again next month and, after this performance, probably the following month too if, as expected, he wins the readers’ competition for the third consecutive month. Two more fine performances also earn a place on this month’s podium: Michael Klukowski with 77/80 and Jessica Larsson with 76/80. This was another good month for passers, with no action scoring top mark on three hands – passing on all eight deals would have scored 48/80.
Simon de Wijs leads the panel this month with an impressive 76/80, closely followed by Jill Meyers (her second consecutive podium finish) and David Bird, both with 75/80. Our thanks to all members of the panel for their time. I am sure that all of our readers appreciate the sharing of our experts’ insights.
Hanoi RONDON3NTPassPassPass3:spades:3:spades:Pass5:diamonds:78
Michal KLUKOWSKI3NTPass4NTPass3NT3:spades:4:hearts:5:diamonds:77
Jessica LARSSON5:diamonds:Pass4NTPass3:spades:3:spades:4:hearts:5:diamonds:76
Tim COPE5:diamonds:PassPassPass3NT3:spades:4:hearts:5:hearts:74
Andrew ROBSON2NTPassPassPass3:spades:3:spades:Pass5:diamonds:73
Peter FREDIN3NTPass4NTPass3:spades:4:diamonds:Pass6:spades:72
Gabriel CHAGAS3NTPassPassPass3NT5:diamonds:4:hearts:Pass70
Paul MARSTON5:diamonds:PassPassPass3NT4:diamonds:4:hearts:Pass69
David BIRD4:diamonds:PassPass3:spades:Pass3:spades:Pass5:diamonds:67
Larry COHEN3NT5:hearts:Pass3:spades:3NT3:spades:3NT6:spades:67
Alan SONTAG3NTPass4:clubs:3:spades:3:spades:3:spades:Dbl5:clubs:65
Sally BROCK4:diamonds:5:hearts:Pass3NT3:spades:3:spades:Dbl5:diamonds:64
Simon De WIJS5:diamonds:5:hearts:4NT4:spades:4NT3:spades:4:hearts:5:diamonds:63
Wen Fei WANG4:diamonds:6:hearts:Pass3NT3NT3:diamonds:4:hearts:6:spades:59
Jill MEYERS3NTPass 4:clubs: 3:spades:4:diamonds:3:spades:DblPass58
TOP SCORES3NTPassPassPass3:spades:3:spades:4:hearts:5:diamonds: