January bidding contest: the results!

Most of the experts decided to bid their hand naturally with a greater or lesser degree of confidence, on the basis that their partner would understand their hand to be 6-5 shape. From the more pessimistic to the more optimistic:

Toffier: “4♠. Yes, I would have said 2♠, in anticipation of this and for several reasons. You will find out straightaway whether partner has three cards in spades. If he says 3♣, you say 3♦ and if he says 3NT, that is perfect. When forced to bid 3♦, the problem becomes unsolvable as there is no good bid. So, let us say 4♠ to pass the time; a bid which does not promise five cards in spades, of course…”

Rocafort: “4♠. That could go badly but I cannot see me unilaterally giving up on game in spades.”

Tignel: “4♠. Even at pairs, there is no question of it being passed as the 4♣ was strong (or very shapely). I am therefore continuing to describe my hand: 4♠ should show 6-5 as North has denied four cards in spades (having not bid 3♠). I would have bid 3♦ in order to better be able to show my two-suiter in case of the opponents pre-empting in 3♥ or 4♥.”

Jill Meyers: “4♠. My second suit, hoping that my partner takes me to be 6-5. I would indeed have started with 3♦.”

Hackett: “4♠. I would not have said 2♠ as then I would never be able to show my diamonds. As partner did not say 3♠, I am probably showing 6-5.”

Thuillez: “4♠. That should show 6-5 as partner has denied four cards in spades. Agree with the 3♦ bid.”

Adad: “4♠. I am describing my hand, my partner quite possibly being 3-3-1-6. By saying 4♣, partner is accepting playing in 5 in case of a misfit.”

I admit to being somewhat in agreement. If you admit that partner is bound to say 3♠ with four cards, it is hard to see what else a 4♠ bid could mean if it is not a 6-5 hand. This was not, however, the view of a significant number of experts.

Rather surprisingly, there were people who passed, probably influenced by the note about it being pairs.

Harari: “Pass. I know: it’s forcing. Nevertheless, it seems like we are completely misfitting (partner has wastage in hearts, given West’s pass at favourable vulnerability) and there is a good chance that we have no game on. At pairs, burying a game is less serious than at teams. I would indeed have bid 2♠ on the first round, a 5-3 spade fit often being difficult to find later on.”

Cronier: “Pass. The start of the sequence is mystifying. Why, if North holds a good single-suiter in clubs, did they not say 3♥ to ask for a heart stop? Why not bid 3NT themselves? And where are all the hearts? I get the impression that North nust have seven not-great cards in clubs and no doubt three cards in hearts. I do not see which contract we might be making… So I pass!”

As it happened, North held ♠K ♥AK43 ♦54 ♣AKJ875. Should they settle for 3NT? Difficult; but the pass over 4♣ would not have been ideal!

Two braver experts settled for a tiny fit.
Lorenzini: “5♣. Even at pairs, I would have started with 3♦ due to the quality of the suit. My plan would have been to say 3♠ and then 4♠ if possible. Clearly, my choice would have been different with ♠AK654 and ♦J87652. 4♣ should show a special hand with which one refuses to play in 3NT, as a 3♥ cuebid was available for playing in 3NT. Maybe seven clubs and four hearts. I do not believe that my partner may pass over 4♠ so I would have bid 5♣ to end the auction.”

Saporta: “5♣. Bidding spades at this stage would have the look if a cuebid. I would have bid 2♠ on the first round, a mess space-consuming bid.”

Finally, there were all those who preferred to confirm their good diamonds.
Lévy: “4♦. Too late for playing in spades; North will not take a 4♠ bid as natural.”

Pacault: “4♦. North would say 3♥ with a normal hand without a heart stop. This 4♣ bid shows long clubs, probably seven cards. Is it forcing? In a duplicate, yes, as 3NT has been bypassed without being investigated and 3♦ promises a follow-up bid. 4♦ has the advantage of not being forcing (repeating a suit) and of suggesting a viable contract. North will bid again if his hand allows it.”

Schmidt: “4♦. I am waiting to see my partner’s hand before I decided whether I should have said 2♠! In any case, it has — for me — become impossible to play in the suit (4♠ at this stage would never be understood as natural). No choice but to confirm the quality of the diamonds now. I will specify that 3♦ in my partnership is forcing to game.”