This bidding problem arose at a number of tables on Monday night.  The question, which many had not examined sufficiently, was to identify the style in which the bidding should now continue.  Do we consider that hearts are here set for ever as trumps, or could opener ever bid 3♥ withg a doubleton, and if the 5-3 fit was K7654-T32  are you allowed to escape to 3N?  And what do the various bids mean?

The two key choices are whether to play in hearts or not, and at which level to play. The key to both choices is how well the 1N opener fits with any shortages held by responder, so the best way forward is for responder to show shape.  This can be done by bidding a fragment or by bidding a shortage (rebidding a second 5-card suit here doesn't seem to help opener much).  Bids at the 3-level allow the possibility of playing 3N, but higher bids commit to playing in the major.  Both fragments and shortages have adherents in the tournament community.

If 4♣ in the sequence shown indicated shortage, then over that North would clearly sign-off.   When South hears 4♥ the expectation should be that some values are wasted and that partner has proably a maximum of 9-10 hcp of useful looking cards.  Unfortunately when you add that to the 15 held by South, there is still scope for a slam to be making easily.

In these situations opener would usually think of the ace opposite the shortage as good news, so actually we are looking at partner having 9-10 out of the (missing) 19 potentially high card points which seem useful from North's perspective.  Allowing for somtimes holding the club ace, that means we have to downgrade the expectations of the North hand's value opposite a club void to be more like 7-8 hcp, which means we are missing 7-8 high card points in the suits held by South.

That will be oen loser and quite probably two, so this makes slam seem less of a good bet, and when you factor in that the reality could be less (a working 5-hcp here) then the danger of bidding beyond 4♥ is clear. 

But the South hand looks so good !

In the event, 5 pairs went to 5♥ or higher (where there were three losers) and 5 pairs stopped in exactly 4♥.

This was the best slam hand in the 28 deals of last night's league match. There were two other hands where slam was makeable but none of those contracts was bid (and neither slam was great); plus the 6♠ slam bid on B7 which was made on a fortunate lead, and one pair 6♥ on B25 only to go down two.

The bidding problem shown comes from a common start when playing a weak NT with four card majors.  At this point you'd like to show club support but also the balanced nature of the hand.  Bidding NT doesn't seem ideal with this spade holding.  What's your poison?

One could say there were five slams in this match one would like to have been in (6♠ on board 2, 6♥ on board 6, 6♠/6N on board 16, 6♥ on board 20, and 6♦ on board 21).   Across those five boards (30 chances) the GCBA teams were in the favoured contract 12 times; this is not great, but the Notts teams only managed 9 times, so we can be considered adequately successful.  There were others hands on which poor (or more like hopeless) slams were bid :  board 8 by Glos, board 11 (twice by Glos and once by Notts but Glos also had two slam tries ending in a minus score), board 12 by Notts, board 13 (once each side).  And there is also the inferior 6♥ bid on board 16 by Notts which was successful (although beatable).

That comes to a total (across both teams) of  21/60  correct decisions on the good slam hands, and another 9 wrong decisions on non-slam hands.   Clearly we all need to do better.

Of the disasters board 11 was the most interesting. The simplest auctions were after a weak 1N opener from West.  East looked at 18 hcp and a five card spade suit and got excited.  The natural start was 2♥ as a transfer and then exuberance got the better of a number who continued with 4N.  The downside of this is that partner, without a spade fit, might well judge a 13-count or 14-count to be a maximum (remember many of us open 11-14 no-trumps these days) and you don't really want to be in a slam with a 31 or 32-count and no decent suit to run.

A better sequence is the one shown which, despite its appearance, does not give up on slam. What is key is that, in reverting over 3N, the opener should always cue bid en route to 4♠ when holding a maximum. That caters perfectly for this dilemma, allowing the East hand to continue opposite a maximum with a spade fit, but to stop in either 3N or 4♠ when partner is minimum or lacks a spade fit.   We know of some who started down this route but failed to read the 4♠ as minimum and, fatally, continued.

(oops - a day late - sorry, I forgot)

This proved the most troublesome of the good slams in this match, and it was bid at only 1/12 tables.  All tables we know of started with three passes to North who then had a choice of three bids : either a 1♥ opener, or a strong 2-level opener (there are a few who switch their weak twos in fourth to Acol twos) or a 4♥ opener.   Holding 18 hcp gives the others an average of about 7 hcp each, so you are not expecting to end up in a part-score here - game is very likely.  Of the three choices, generally it is the 1-level opening which allows most flexible bidding and discovery of the best contract.  The time to avoid a 1♥ opening is where there is a danger of it being passed out, to your embarassment;  this hand is not that time.

After a 1♥ opener, it is inevitable that South will bid 1♠ and now you have the rebid problem to consider. Since you never want to stop out of game on this hand, your choices are limited to 3♣ and 4♥.  When the former was chosen, partner continued with 3N (I'd prefer 3♦ myself) and over that the opener went back to 4♥.  This is middling descriptive in one way - it implies at least 10 cards in hearts and clubs and gives partner a chance to evaluate the ♠AQ♦A  as being really useful cards.  Not enough to under-write a slam but enough - given partner's strong bidding - to allow a try.  A cue of 4♠ might have hit the jackpot here.  But of course, he passed.

After a start of 1♥-1♠-4♥ (a common sequence) all of the Souths passed but they began to think, rather too late, that maybe they should have continued.   What partner has shown here is a hand that always wanted to play in 4♥ but didn't want to just open 4♥ in fourth seat.  There is a feeling (but who had explored this sequence with their partner?) that this ought to be stronger than a 4♥ opener because it is interested in other things. This makes a strong case for the South hand continuing.  One could wonder if the North hand was too weak to open 4♥ but was encouraged by the 1♠ bid; such thinking used to have currency but of all the responses South could make, this is the least encouraging, so the logic might be flawed (and the alternative is too useful).

There were a few 4♥ openers and of course all those tables saw it followed by three passes.  No reports were heard of strong opening bids.

The one successful auction we can only report but will not comment upon : P-P-P-1♥   then  P-1♠-P-3♥(non-forcing)   then   P-3N-P-4♣ (cue)  and   P-4♥-P-4N(ace ask)   and so to slam ....

This hand from last night's practice match caused a lot of head scratching.  Every table opened 3♦ even vulnerable against not. On the plus side the shape is not 7222, the suit quality is ideal for a preempt, and it is first in hand.  So the bid is clearly justified, even before we see the problems created for the other side.

The first problem is for East over the opening bid - what to do with a 5332 shape and 12 HCP. This is a hand which would happily have opened a weak NT and shown a minimum when asked. Despite this, three pairs found a 3♠ bid (and the fourth passed).  This comes with serious dangers of partner having short spades and the third hand being able to make a penalty double.  It is not recommended; even over a 2-level preempt, a double is preferred to an overcall, unless the hand is seriously one-suited or two-suiter.  Over this 3♦ a double is my preference, as these 12 high card points are all working cards.  The pass is also quite acceptable.

Let's look first at what happens after 3♦-3♠-P.  Clearly the West hand will proceed, and be thinking that there are three denominations in the running.  There is little option but to introduce the first of these with 4♣ and this creates a dilemma for East. It can hardly be right to invent a heart suit or to rebid this spade suit, so the choice is between 4♦ as a waiting bid (not extra values as you are already game forcing, and too useful as a mark-time bid to insist on a control) and a raise to 5♣. The appeal of the latter is that it might dampen partner's spirits, but in practice of the three who overcalled with 3♠ and who all heard 4♣, only one raised to 5♣ and their partner gave them one more.  Full marks there. Two Easts, amazingly, rebid 4♠; one heard his partner pass and fortunately there were only three trump losers, so that game made. The other West continued by torturing partner with a 5♦ cue bid.  From East's point of view this was slamming in either clubs or spades, and he cue bid 5♥ only to hear partner raise this to 6♥.  He did not feel able to bid these spades for a third time, and the pass of 6♥ actually earned +980 on the board for a top score. 

To be fair, it is very difficult to handle a 2-suiter like West's after partner has overcalled even at a lower level.  If the 3♠ overcall did indeed have the sort of suit one should have to come in at this level, then you would expect 97 doubleton and a void to be adequate support.

And that difficulty is still there after 3♦-P-P and after 3♦-X-P.  In the former case, one useful tool is to defend over a minor suit preempt with the 4-level bids having the same pattern as your defence to a 1N opening (on the theory that both want the best way of finding major suit fits). Here for some 4♥ would now show hearts and a minor (clubs here) and game going values.  Partner would cue bid 4♠ (never right to argue with partner's two suiter) and on confidently to the heart slam.  After a double the responder can just assume that both hearts and clubs are good enough for slam, and the only issue would be stopping at the 6-level (and finding the grand were the spades headed by the AK).  The one table which saw 3♦-P-P  found a double over which partner of course bid 4♠.  It continued P-5♣-P-5♥ and all pass.  This just shows that being able to handle two suiters over a preempt matters.

The other interpretation of all this discussion is that "preempts work".

This was the first problem hand of the night and it is one for which we should be prepared. Looking at the opening bid first, we can see a drop in the standards to which we are accustomed. This opening is probably not recommended but there are always advantages in bidding in first seat (two opponents you can inconvenience) and here you have the boss suit and it is a suit you would be happy to see partner lead. And it has created a problem.

What can West do now?

There were quite a number of slam hands during last night's League match. This was the first of those and it was bid to slam at 5 out of 12 tables. It is not clear how to bid confidently to the six level even when unopposed. A normal start for North-South would be 1♠  - 2N showing a good spade raise.  If the style is then to show a second suit with 3♦ (increasingly common amongst top players, with showing a singleton coming next) then North will appreciate the value of the diamond jack. If the style is first to show lack of a singleton or just a minimum, then North might be less enthused.

When North over 1♠ chose to splinter with 4♣, South signed off in game feeling that having only one club to ruff was bad news. That ended the auction at one table but the problem was really that North was a good trick too good for a splinter. At at least two other tables after the same start, over the sign-off North just asked for aces and bid the slam; successful but really just a gamble.  If the South hand was ♠KJ654♥J5♦Q9♣KQT2 then the bidding would be the same and you would hate to be even at the 5-level.   If North was always going to bid a slam, then the only justification for 4♣ and then 4N is to create the possibility that partner can count 13 tricks and at some point bids the grand slam. A better effort over 4♣ was Richard Harris's 4♥ cue which was enough to let partner bid the slam.

Not all North-South pairs had it so easy. At that vulnerability and in first seat, East should be on the lookout for any chance to preempt obstructively, and here 3♣  beckons. After that start at table 1 it proceeded P - 5♣  at which point North produced a double and South bid 5♠.  That contract was straightforward and declarer was careful to eliminate all the other suits before playing a diamond to the jack. This would guarantee the contract against any bad diamond break.

This was the other slam in the first round hands for the County KO and like yesterday's hand, there was only one pair bid to the seven level, and again that was the level you wanted reach.

Only two auctions are known and they both started 1♦ - 1♥  and have been censored.  So how should it be bid?

With 5-5 in two suits it is always right to bid the higher suit first, so here it must start 1♦-1♠.  South might be tempted to show the club suit, but it's wrong to hide the spade support, and the hand doesn't deserve another bid, so it is now or never.  Over the 2♠ bid, the default action for natural bidders is 3♥ and over this it seems honest for South to bid 3N. The club values are not good news for North, but there is a hint - almost a guarantee in a weak NT system - of a singleton heart.  North should now institute cue bidding and then a 4N ask, possibly also checking on the ♣K, before bidding the grand slam.

The alternative approach after 1♦ -1♠-2♠ is to bid 2N as an asking bid, over which 3♣ by South would show a 3154 shape. How North now continues is undiscussed territory for all of us, but one hopes that a path to 7♠ can be found.

The grand slam looks excellent, with 11 top tricks and two heart ruffs to make 13. But declarer needs to be careful, and curiously it is the lead of a singleton (very unusual against a grand slam) which creates the problem. After a club lead, declarer needs to start by ruffing two hearts, intending then to cash the ♣KQ, but when the heart king falls the clubs are not needed and declarer can just draw trumps instead. Playing a second club too early lets East ruff and the grand slam is now down.

How the one pair bid the grand slam has still to be discovered. Does anyone know?

There was one exceptionally tough match in last night's first round draw for the County Knockout, when Angseesing was pitched against Waggett.  There were plenty of swings ending 66-79 in favour of the team of Peter Waggett with Roger Jackson, and Richard Harris playing with Mark Rogers.  The winners gained enormously from swings on two slam hands, of which this was one.

The bidding shown was the winner team's auction to the good grand slam which no other team reached.  We cannot offer much to recommend about it after the third bid. 

More interesting is whether or not the grand slam (everyone bid to some slam) should have been bid with confidence rather than on a whim. Most people started with a 2N opener, with an excellent 21-count (upgraded mentally to a 22-count).  Clearly South will show spades, but then comes the key question, whether to show diamonds next or not. 

If South shows the diamond suit through a 2N-3♥-3♠-4♦ sequence, what does North do? A favoured approach is always to sign off in either 4♠ or 5♦ with a minimum, and to use the other three bids as slam interest, with 4♥ for slam interest in spades (else no there is no way to stop in 4♠), and 5♣ for slam interest in diamonds, leaving 4N for slam interest but no fit.  Here that would be fine for South, who is now intent on playing in spades.  How you get to the grand slam now remains uncertain, as none of us have ever discussed what happens after 4N!

More promising is for South to ignore the diamonds and treat the hand as a spade single suiter.  This gives up a good grand slam opposite ♠AT♥A64♦KQJ8♣ AT5, and that is somewhat short of a 2N opener.  But it also avoids finding a diamond contact opposite ♠AT♥AKQ♦J764♣AKT5.   You cannot just blast a slam in case they are cashing two top hearts, so your best bet is either transfer at the 3-level or the 4-level and then bid 5♣ showing shortage there.  After a 5♦ cue, you need to sign off in 5♠  but partner continues with a heart control.  Continuing with 5N (ace asking since 4N was missed)  gets a response showing all the keycards and North can now see that the grand slam is good. 

Easy game this.

The power of the pre-empt was illustrated on this hand from Monday, where the reduced bidding space let to every North-South playing in a failing contract. The question is could North-South have done better?

There were two tables where West didn't open 3♣ and that resulted in the lowest contracts in which North-South stopped, but these were also too high. It was not however a solo effort by North-South as they bid to 2♠ and to 3♦ only over the opponents' bidding.

After the 3♣ opener there were two paths chosen by North; four chose to overcall 3♠ and two doubled.  The 3♠ overcall was passed out and met a not-unexpected fate; coming in at the 3-level in a five card suit when partner might be stuck for a bid with a singleotn or void opposite is a very dangerous pursuit; overcalling such a suit at the 1-level is fine but two levels higher you need a much more robust trump holding. 

The much better alternative by North is double; this gives partner many more options and you can still bid spades on the next round if you need to. Two Norths found that and the spotlight now turns to South; Both Souths respionded with 3♥ and the auction continued P - 3♠ - P - 3N. This was not a great contract but at least if it made there would be a game bonus to collect.

Can we see any winning option here for North-South?  There was one - and it's an option we don't always think of - and that is defending. It is hard to resist bidding as North over the 3♣ opener but if you ask yourself what contract you are likely to make opposite a passed partner with what's roughly a balanced 16-hcp with 5 of those points in the opponent's suit, you might struggle to find a good answer. Alternatively after P - 3♣ - X - P,   if South were to ask how to get rich after this start to the auction, there is only one answer that comes to mind - and that is to pass.  This is rather a gamble but it would be a clear choice at match-points where a bottom is just a bottom. Part of the power of pre-empts comes from our unwillingness to give in when the opponents announce a weak hand - but maybe sometimes we should.

This hand was a candidate for some very large swings, and it nearly all depends on the choices made by the hand shown.  The debate is still going on as to what is best after the auction starts as shown.  The advantage of bidding Michaels (2♥ as spades and a minor) is that partner will look at their hand very differently from the time you overcall 1♠, and of course you might get to a club contract you would otherwise miss.  On the other hand, you are not offering partner a choice between equals, and if partner has a doubleton spade you nearly always want to play in that suit.  As well as 1♠ and 2♥ there are two other bids worth consideration - these being 3♠ and 4♠. The latter would be an easy choice non-vulnerable but it might just get you too high somedays and that costs more when vulnerable.  What do you fancy?

This was the first board with 13 top ticks, and nobody managed to bid the grand slam.  In fact (as always?) a few stopped in game.

The bidding shown is only partly realistic, as there were cases where South made a spade overcall, and there were cases where North made a spade overcall. Both bids have to count as doubtful, and there is a case for passing with each hand.  But it still takes a few useful techniques to get to the top contract.

The first three bids are simply value bids and the 3♥ call is treated (as in all auctions with a minor suit supported) as a stopper in case 3N is the correct contract.  Since 3♠ would now have something of the same flavour, it is useful to use jumps in this conext (and hence the 4♠ bid) as showing shortage.  When East has shown shortage, West can comfortably check on aces.  The normal responses cover 5♣ through to 5♠, and the higher bids are reserved for hands with a useful void.  Here there is every expectation the void is useful and the 6♦ response shows an odd number of key cards (surely 3) and a void, and this is what allows West to bid the grand slam.  Over 4N, a response of 5N would have shown an even number of key cards with a void.

If we look at the traveller for the CBC Pairs on the same hands, we find nobody bid the slam, which reminds us that even the 6♣ or 6♦ bidders do deserve some congratulations.

This board resulted in multiple double game swings in the most recent Pairs League game.

The above auction is a reflection of what seems sensible, but it is by no means the only option.  The most successful auction from an East-West perspective was (from East, Garry Watson)  2♠ - P - 4♠ - end.   This collected +620 and a gain for the pair concerned of 15 imps in each of their three matches.  Three of the twelve tables played in 4♠, and one played in 3♠ making an overtrick.

The other tables all saw North-South play in diamonds.  The three tables in Division One were all doubled and all managed to make 12 tricks for a score of +650.  At some tables that game was bid freely but, as you can tell from the double, at some tables it sounded like a sacrifice over 4♠ (which indeed it was).

Back to the opening bid as East : should one or shouldn't one open with a side 4-card major?  This is a much more open question now that it was years ago (when it was verboten).  With the values dominanatly in the major, and with being first in hand and so maximal pre-emptive effect, the case is quite strong and those who chose to do so deserve their gain.

Now can North-South get into the bidding after 2♠ - P - 4♠ ?   That's very difficult.  Answers please on a postcard.

[LATER ADDITION]  There is a rule attributed to Jeff Meckstroth that when yo have a 10-card fit in a major you just bid game.  If you've got enough values you will make, and if you haven't it will be a good sacrifice.  It's worth remembering and it comes up regularly with 4-card support to a weak two opener.  You really want to just bid game, and in a case like this enquiring with 2N will give the opponents a chance to get into the bidding, and here find their 5♦ game.   Being able to bid 4♠ here knowing it is right depends on partner having six for the opening bid, and is one of the reasons to discourage weak twos with five card suits.

There were slams bid on six hands out of twenty on Monday night, but three times there was only one table bid a slam, and three times only two tables.  On only three of these boards was slam successful; this was the best slam of the bunch. It's worth examining one of the successful auctions (shown).

As many do now, this pair uses a 1♣ opener for all balanaced hands outside the 1N opening bid range without a 5-card major; this means that after a 1♦ opener, the NT-rebid is not needed as the opener cannot have a suitable hand for that rebid. This allows, in the sequence 1♦ - P - 1M - P  for opener to use the 1N bid artifcially, and here the system is to play transfers, so that 1N shows clubs. The big advantage of this is that the opener is guaranteed a third chance to bid.  Here North rebids as they would after a natural 2♣ (bidding 2♣ if they woudl have passed) and here chooses 2N showing an invitational hand with a spade stopper.  South is well placed to continue describing a 1354 shape by bidding 3♥ aand North confirmed a five card suit with a raise to game. Over the raise to 4♥ South has a tricky choice; the strength that has been shown so far is enough to reach game opposite partner's game invite, so it is clearly worth progressing towards slam. It is hard to argue with Dan McIntosh's choice here of just bidding 6♥.

Contrast that with the traditional approach which would be 1♦ - 1♥ - 3♣  over which North is forced into 3N and South has to pass. Modern methods do have some positive advantages.

We saw the strongest responding hand for some time last night, when the 24-count shown heard partner open a weak NT, of the 11-14 range.  There is no doubt that you want to bid a slam, but the question is whether to bid a small slam or a grand slam, and in no-trumps or in a suit?

The conventional wisdom is that you need 37 hcp (actually I might lower this) to make 7N and that is probably true as long as the points missing do not include a king.  It is very hard, on balanced hands, to make 12 tricks in just three suits to go with the ace in the fourth.  Here there are only two kings missing and it would be nice to check on these before bidding 7N.   It's also worth considering a suit contract, as that often generates an extra trick.  The same consideration - missing a king is bad news - applies to a suit contract, and if you are missing just a few jacks or a queen and a jack, the extra trick from the 4-4 fit might not matter.

The key when you don't know what to do is to consult partner.  You might start with 2♣ asking for majors, or 2♠ (for some) starting a Baron sequence (bidding suits up the line).  Again it comes back to the missing kings - you could find a suit fit and then invoke ace and king asking, but if you don't find a fit, any NT bid will be natural and you lose the chance.  This is curiously a position where Gerber 4♣ becomes useful - just like it was useful on one hand about 8 years ago!   You can check for aces and then for kings and when a king is missing, it seems that 6N is the prudent choice.

How well does that work?  Look at the hands and the answer ....

LATER ADDITION

Simulation of 103 openers opposite this particular 24-count showed that

• 60% of the openers were 11-counts, and 30% were 12-counts;  only 10% were upper range.
• A third of the time you want to be in 6N, one third in 7N, and one third the grand is 50%.
• Asking range (via 5N) got you to the preferred level 80% of the time (guessing is 50%), even if it gave the wrong answer on this hand.
• A suit fit was relevant only 30% of the time it was present, and it offered a full extra trick one quarter of that time (and made a 50% grand slam into 95% the remainder).
• The range is as good an indicator of whether to stop in 6N as is the absence of a king.

This hand looks like a very easy slam to bid, but it eluded most pairs on Monday night. A lot was generally read into North's response to the opening bid.  Where North bid 1♠ it was followed by clubs from South and now North became mesmerised by the two stops in the fourth suit, and quickly bid 3N.  In practice this contract made even though there were five top spades to be cashed. 

But better contracts were available.  After 1♥ - 1♠ one South rebid 4♥ and his partner just charged ahead (via 4N asking about keycards) into 6♥ and they got the top score on the board. One pair started really well, when North preferred to bid the stronger club suit first. This style is to be encouraged, as long as the hand has game forcing values. The initial 2-level bid, especially if game forcing, gets partner thinking game and slam rather than part-score and it often works out well.  Here it sh asould have hit the jackpot as South can now bid 3♠ to show a good hand with club support and short spades.  Bidding the slam is easy then, although this pair had a slight mix-up and ended (disastrously) in 6N. 

One other pair bid to 6♣ - perhaps they'll tell us how ....

This was the only good slam from Monday and it was bid at only four of the ten tables. (Slams were makeable on B7 and B11 but none of these were attractive to bid). Why did six pairs miss out?

The most common start to the auction was a game forcing Jacoby 2N response.  There were three who splintered with 3♠, but if partner is to judge when to proceed the splinter needs to be a narrow range and this hand - for most people - is just too strong for that. Two of those hearing 3♠ signed off in game, in recognition of the bad fit.  One powered straight into slam. so 33% success rate from that start.

After the 2N start a number of different continuations are found. There was only one South who stopped proceedings with 4♥, the others either showing shape (often the short club) or making a cue bid. Following some element of cooperation, we had one example of North cue bidding beyond game after which South drove to slam, one of South cue bidding past game and North driving to slam, and one where North went to slam after South's 4♦ cue bid. We get a 42% success rate from this start.

What should be happening?  What we have here is some extra values in South (singleton, plus an ace beyond an opening) and a fairly minimum (7-loser) but control rich game force with North. When you get extras+extras you expect to make 12 tricks, and it doesn't quite add up perfectly here.  What makes the difference?  One very positive feature is the fact that you have AKJ in every side suit - that makes it quite difficult for the opposition not to give you an extra trick with the lead. But you are unlikely to know this!  The fact of length opposite partner's shortage is however more visible and that is always encouraging. 

So is the slam cold?  No it's not - even after negotiating for only one trump loser, you still have some work to do.  If the trumps break 2-2 then that work is simply two ruffs in North, but if the trumps are 3-1 they might get to remove that option and that leaves you with five trump tricks and three AK-pairs.  So you need to turn one of the jacks into a winner. With three chances, that is good odds.

Is it clear how to play the trump suit - what do you usually do when missing the KJ and some small ones?  In most cases the answer is a double finesse but that's not the case when you have 9 cards in the suit. In that case the safest way is to start with the ace and then lead towards the queen (87% shot).  If you had 8 cards in the suit, then do take a double finesse but the success chance then is only 76%.

Some of the hands from last night's game seemed straightforward, but this hand was not in that category.

The bidding started as shown at one table, while others started with 1N-3♠ (one level lower but still a problem). Clearly the East hand has slam potential but it could be a massive misfit, it could be right to play in hearts, or it could be right to play in clubs. How can you decide?

One useful bid, applying most clearly after 4♠ (should it apply over 3♠?), is the use of 4N as two places to play. This could be like an unusual 2NT with 5-5 or more in the unbid suits, or it could be one decent suit plus three card support for partner. 

Here 4N should elicit 5♣ since West prefers clubs to hearts, and now East can try for the grand. Whether or not West would oblige (with clubs and high cards clearly better than they might be) is not clear.  What is clear is that nobody found the club fit, the most common contract being 6♥ and this happening most often as a punt from East after partner's 1N opening promised two hearts.

Any better ideas for how to bid this, and on what is best over 3♠, would be welcome.

This hand from Monday saw some divergent opinions, and as often the middle route is the right answer. 

At this point in the proceedings four Norths closed up with a 4♠ bid; one bid stright to 6♠ and another two jumped to 4N (which ought to be natural here, 11 hcp with four hearts) and then one chose 5♠ and the other chose 6♠.

There were three pairs chose differently with two bidding 4♣ (not annotated, so we cannot tell their intentions!) and one chose 4♥.  The 4♣ bid is what you need to bid on a 1435-shaped hand which is interested in a slam in clubs (having discounted hearts) but neither table got into trouble as partner had a natural rebid in spades at this point. The only unambiguous way to try for a slam in spades over 3♠ is that last of these options - the 4♥ bid.  Why is that?

In all Stayman auctions, when partner shows one major and you now bid NT you have promised the other (else why ask?) and that makes the bid of the other major redundant . So why not use it for something we need? In this sequence (and after 2N-3♣-3♥)  a bid of the other major is simply a general slam try, showing a hand too good to signoff but not good enough to force beyond game. (The same principle applies to 1N-2♣ -2♥-3♠  and 1N-2♣-2♠-3♥) Well done Rob Lawy in finding that.

The downside of being descriptive for partner is that the opposition might be listening.  In Rob's auction after 4♥-4♠ the auction continued with cue bids in clubs and hearts.  West did not take the hint - they should have led out the ♦K after this start;  Here it only saved one trick but sometimes that could be vital.

This was the best hand slam on Monday, and the slam was bid by nobody.  There was an attempt by East-West later on B6 (going one down and two down)  and on B15 the North'South got another chance which two pairs grabbed.  On that hand there were 12 easy tricks but the defence had two tricks if they cashed them first; nobody did.

The auction was not the same at all tables; in fact only a small majority (6 out of 10) overcalled 1♠ here, so a number of pairs had rather an easier time (more on that later).  It is difficult to get to the slam from this position; a lot depends on what North knows about South's hand - and this is one time when the traditional Acol players have an advantage.  If South has promised 4+ clubs, then North knows there is a fit and has a choice of three ways of showing it - either a 2♠ cue bid, or raise of clubs, or a fit jump to 3♦.  The last of these might seem a bid of a stretch but when North has only one heart, they "know" the opponents have at least an 8-card heart fit and have yet to find it; this was the case for five of the six pairs concerned.  The preemptive value of 3♦ makes justifies the slight overbid that represents.  What happened in practice?  All but one bid 2♦ and the one doubled (suggesting hearts).  Can we still get to slam? The two Souths who now bid 3N had no chance and in fact were in trouble on the heart lead but somehow the defence failed to cash - so 3N made.  The others bid 3♣ (although one had to bid 4♣ as East had bid 3♥). There was still a chance to get to slam, but nobody found it - and the answer over 3♣ is a jump to 4♥ showing club support and short hearts (a splinter). After that South will push to a slam, confident that partner cannot justify a 4♥ bid without the diamond ace (or a heart void).

What about the auction with no interference?  The answer is much the same here.  After 1♣ - P - 1♦ - P - 3♣ - P    what should North bid?  the 4♥ bid stands out.   And so much simpler!

This was the big hand from Monday's Pairs game. The two pairs who shared an equal top had similar misunderstandings to avoid their intended 6♥ contract.

The auction shown started with a game forcing 2♥ which meant that North had the luxury of bidding 3♥ to set trumps, leaving lots of space for investigating just how high to go.

Switching to the alternatives if not playing 2/1 GF, your only choices are a jump cue bid in either clubs or diamonds. The catch with either of those is that partner will look favourably in honours in the other, while you know such honours are wasted. Another option was 5♦ as Exclusion Blackwood (asking for key cards but ignoring the diamond ace) but the problem is that with a no-ace response you still might want to be in slam, and if partner has the heart ace, how do you investigate the grand slam?

A good agreement after game forcing starts like the one shown is for the next bid to show shortage and 3N is used to deny one. This lets responder in this case distinguish between a diamond singleton and the diamond ace, so that a partner with ♦KJx can assess sensibly. This was not available to our pair today. 

There was however some light at the end of the tunnel when South bid 4♦.  North concluded from partner's failure to cue bid either clubs or spades, that South lacked the kings there, and cue bidding diamonds without the ace in such a poor hand did not make sense. So partner had the ♦A and now a 4N ace ask would get an understandable response. The 5♥ bid showed the heart ace and thus a means of discarding the club jack.  The grand slam was still a possibility, if partner had a singleton spade, so North continued with 5♠ intending this as an ask about control in the suit. This approach was new to South, who shrugged his shoulders and showed his spade support with 6♠ .

The other pair to reach 6♠ started the auction 1♠ -2♥ -3♠  after which, despite North's later attempt to offer hearts as a contract with a bid partner did not understand, led them to finish in 6♠.

Playing in spades, it is important to lead that suit from the South hand, and to cover West's card, rather than rise with the ace, to avoid losing to a 3-0 trump break. Here the appearance of the king gives you thirteen tricks.

There were three slam hands in the CBC Pairs last night, with

• B12 bid to slam by everyone but there was only one pair bid the grand slam with the 15 top tricks. 
• B25 bid to the good small slam at only 2 out of 12 tables
• B28 bid to the excellent 6♦ at only two tables, plus one table who got to 7♦ (and cards were lying well and they scored +2140 on the board).

But to the bidding on this board.  There was a very common start to the auction with 1♦ - P - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♠ - P.    At this vulnerability, West cannot afford ot bid more than 1♠, which allowed North to make a splinter bid shorwing heart support and short spades.  What can South do now?

It was interesting to note that three tables bid to a no-play slam on this hand - we have to ask was that avoidable?

This was the start to the auction at some tables and the question is how does East continue.  We saw both extremes in practice - with one table bidding 4♠ to end the auction and another bidding 4N to check on aces before bidding 6♠. When you see this range of choices the answer is nearly always that something in the middle is the best approach, and here you need an agreement with partner that trying to play in 2N is too much like landing on a pin, and you can afford to make the 2N bid an artificial game try.  You use this to find out if partner hgas a good or a bad hand for the raise to 2♠. If you do that then you can hear if partner made a 3-card raise on a 5431 hand (they now bid a second suit), or a 3-card raise on a 6331 hand (they rebid the suit opened), or a minimum with four trumps which bids 3♠, or a maximum bwith four trumps which bids something at the four level (a new suit being a splinter).  It's all very natural and so easy to remember, and its use comes up quite regularly.

So some pairs could have done better; we sympathise however with the one pair who were treated to a 2♥ opener from South.  North heard West double and knew the opponents were heading for 4♠, so he sacrificed in advance and the 5♥ bid made life quite awkward for East.  Taking a chance on a slam in these circumstances cannot be criticised.

Bidding is indeed difficult.  This hand looks to be an excellent candidate for a 7♣ contract (making 78.5% of the time - curiosuly more likely when hearts are 6-2 when they are unknown) but nobody got close to that.

Only one pair - across 18 tables - managed to get to a slam at all (although we can excuse Malcolm & Mike who collected +1100 from 5♥x-5).  Why was the slam difficult to bid?

One answer might be that the North-South pair were not given an easy ride.  Most tables started P-P-2♥(weak)  and now North had to decide what to bid.  The practical bid - found at a number of tables was 3N.  The one table to bid a slam had South raise this 3N bid to 4N (quantitative, and partner cannot expect more than 10 hcp from a passed hand).   North had the chance now to bid the almost impregnable 6♣ slam but he went for 6N and it rolled home easily when the clubs broke 2-1.

But in fact, that was rather gentle bidding from East-West. East could well bid 4♥ over 3N and now 4N would be natural but it loses the slam connotations. (Dangerous if the 2♥ opener might be five, but that is a good reason for preferring a 1♥ opener in that case). North might feel it is better to go back to 5♣ over 4N, and this might indeed get a raise to the small slam.   Another way to make it more difficult for North-South would be for West to open 3♥. North will still bid 3N but it is no longer a jump and South cannot afford to bid on.

As so often, the more you bid (with the one exception noted above) the better off you are.

This was the best slam hand on Monday and it was bid at none of the sixteen tables.  There were only two tables which really had any chance of getting there and it all depended on South's first bid.

The most common start to the auction (there were four tables where East - not unreasonably - passed) is as shown.  What should South do now?    Most tables produced a mix of 2♠ overcall and takeout double.  Both of these told West something - that the opponents were bound to bid 4♠. There was one reaction to this which was more extreme than others - and that was the case where West bid 5♥. This lost 500 but that was a very small cost.  The other reactions (a raise to 4♥) got the inevitable 4♠ bid from North.

There was one option which actually makes bidding a slam more practical, and this gives a more informative message than either the double or 2♠ overcall - that option is a Michaels bid, showing a 5-5 two suiter.  At one table this was a 3♠ cue and at another it was a jump to 4♣; the effect of a bid like this is to make partner much more keen to bid with just a few cards in the right place.  Was it enough? 

In practice it wasn't quite enough - North was a passed hand and the 5332 shape was unappealing, so they did volunteer to go to game, and in one case volunteered to bid 5♠. And it stopped there. But if South had felt ambitious - they might have reached the slam.

The other slam attempts in later boards produced miuxed results - there were three attempts at an over ambitious 6N on B9 of which one got lucky, and two bid the very good 6♦ on B12 which made easily. 

This was the only slam (or close to slam) hand from Monday and less than half the field got to slam.

Two pairs had very appealing auctions, of which one is shown here. The key point in this auction is that the East hand is too strong to bid a 3♠ splinter over the 1♥ response as partner can have very little in the minors and will be forced into bidding 4♥ nearly every time. (Unless you have an agreement that 3N shows values but nothing to cue). When West makes the diamond support as clear as Ncky Freguson did here, then it is easy for his partner - Tom Jarman in this case - to bid the slam.

The other attractive auction (by Williams & Wignall, you might be surprised to learn) started with P - 1♦ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♥   after which nothing would stop opener short of 6♦. The key point here is that in the context of an unbalanced 1♦ opener, after a raise suits are always natural and so West could can afford to hide a 4-card major on the first round as it will emerge in due course. The fact of primary diamond support and values (for an inverted raise) makes it easy for East to bid the slam.

One of the other successful auctions is worthy of record, and this was very different because North opened the bidding with a weak 2♠ bid.  There was little choice for East but to double and South bounced to game.  West could show some values with a double, and now East cue bid 5♠ as a "pick a slam move" but promising first round spade control (where the alternative 5N would have denied that). Well done to East-West, but notice how much less certain that auction was that the two auctions given earlier.  Yet again - bidding more (by North here) makes life much less good for the opponents.

In acknowledgement of the exhortations to  bid as often as you can, it is only fair to report that sometimes this backfires.  Every West was faced with this problem on Monday and of the 16 players, we had 7 chose to open with a club pre-empt.  Five of those got a 3N overcall and the club lead (did it have to be?) from East gave declarer a very easy path to nine tricks.  Where West passed, North-South found their 4-4 spade fit and played in spades and only 2/9 declarers in spades made their game. The two who made game were exactly the two who received the ♣8 lead.

Does this tell us not to bid?  Not really.  The East-West pair who scored best did involve a pre-empt, but this was for the brave West who opened 4♣; this stopped North bidding 3N and South ended in 4♠ doiubled going two down.

This hand from Monday presented some non-uncommon questions, of which the first was in the bidding - and it is whether or not you leave 1N in this poistion of if your take it out ....   at the event in question any takeout would be natural and non-forcing.

In a more general context two other issues apply

• anybody playing a strong NT will have heard partner open 1N and now be transferring into spades, and sometimes you might want to play with the field, and
• with most modern approaches - with most forms of checkback - you are not able to offer partner a choice between diamonds and spades

So - given here you have the choice, do you pass or do you bid?

Monday was an odd night in the slam department this week; it started on B2 when three pairs bid a slam missing two cashable aces (and once the opposition even sactificed over that), and then on B3 two pairs bid a slam missing AJxxx trumps and a vital queen. Board 4 has the potential for a slam off two aces, and here one pair thought to check, but their 4N bid was passed by partner and that contract went three down.  B5 next was a slam on two finesses - bid twice and failed twice. It all went quiet then until B10 where the slam missing two aces was bid at only one table. Not a single successful slam all night!

The credit on B2 however goes to the opposition for creating the dilemma for the North-South pair. 

Let's look at how the auction starts; across 16 tables we had 8 overcall 2♦ and 8 tables overcalled 3♦; notably all three Wests in the top division chose 3♦.  The next choice however was the crucial one - with three of the Easts finding a raise to 5♦ and giving South a real problem. The South hand is rather above average in terms of playing strength but is only 12 HCP;  two of the three Souths in this position were tempted to bid again - one chose 5♥ and the other 5♠ and now what happened was partner moved on to the slam. 

We find that 67% of those given a problem by East went wrong, while 0% of those who were not bounced got the hand right.   This is yet another confirmation that taking away bidding space from the opponents makes their bidding less accurate.

It was curious to see how small differences in judgement can change the result dramatically. 

One table started with the auction shown.  The strong NT got an overcall showing one major, and South settled for 2♥ as a place to play.  This was passed round to East who, naturally enough, made a takeout double.  Paul Denning at this point recognised that the opposition were about to stop in 2♠ and he didn't want that so he bid 3♥ .  This did push West into bidding 3♠ but it also allowed North to revalue his hand; the likelihood of short spades with South so enthused him that he bid game, and there the matter rested. The defence started with a top spade, ducked, and when the club switch was not found, declarer had no trouble ruffing a spade and then playing the NT opener for the heart queen, to clock up 10 tricks.

Another table also started with a strong NT and now North overcalled 2♣ showing either single suited hearts or four hearts and another suit. South bid 2♦ to ask and North now bid 2♥ . East doubled and at this point the auctions diverged when South passed, thinking that pass and then 3♥ would describe the strength of this hand well.  But the auction proceeded 2♠ - P -3♠ - P -4♠  - end.  The lead was a top heart then a trump, and declared continued trumps to make the spade game. 

So South's choice over the double meant game in one direction of the other!  The swings in the two matches concerned were 12 imps and 14 imps.

After a very flat board one on Nonday, the swings started on this board. It was clear for East and South to pass, after which should West open?

As we know from many other deals, the more room we leave the opponents to bid the more accurate will be their determination of the right contract. At this vulnerability, the West hand begs to be opened with 3♣ and in Division One five of the six Wests found this bid (but only 3 out of 8 in Division Two).  North has a natural 3♥ overcall, and the question then is how high should East raise?

The answer depends on how pure you expect the West hand to be for a third-in-hand opener,  The strength of the East hand suggests that there is a game for North-South, but the weak clubs and the possibility of providing just one trick outside that means the penalty could become large (six trump tricks plus an ace is -800).  In Division One, three Easts nevertheless blasted 5♣ at this point, and two were rewarded when South continued to 5♥.  In Division Two all three Easts passed at this point and after South raised to game, two continued with 5♣. This put no pressure on South who could double to show some defensive values, and that cost 300 points. So passing and bidding is a tactice to avoid!

Was sacrificing a sensible option?  It was all going to depend on whether or not 4♥ made, and the answer is that - apart from one case where East later went wrong - when East led partner's suit against 4♥ declarer went off.  Sacrficing had exchanged +100 for -300 for those pairs.

Should it have been so?  Probably not.  After the bidding, declarer should be expecting a club finesse to lose and should see the danger following of losing two spades and a diamond.  So why not refuse the losing finesse?   If declarer does that, and plays a diamond to the ♦8 at trick two they wuill succeed in setting up some diamond winners  in time to discard the losing spade.  It is correct to decline the finesse as if diamonds do not behave (both honours with East) and the ace of spades is lying badly (with East) then the finesse was never going to work as East had passed initially.  And if East doesn't have those cards, you will always make the game.

So the answer becomes that the sacrifice is the winning choice!

This was a curious hand from Monday; it wasn't the only time that both sides played the hand in hearts (B19 had North in 3♥ and West in 2♥, both doubled and going down) but it seems a bid more strange when we have two North-South pairs playing in hearts, while in the other direction we get one pair playing in a heart partscore, one in a heart game, and a third in a heart slam.

Here's how some of that happened.  The cases of North playing hearts both arose on the same sequence - the one illustrated.  Was this reasonable?  It's hard to deny's North's viewpoint that the opponents are comfortable in 2♦, and the North hand isn't suitable for a takeout double.  Bidding 2♥ must therefore be a reaonable option. South, on hearing 2♥ will be sure that isn't the ideal spot, but might be scared of digging a bigger hole, and the fact is that the opponents haven't doubled yet.  The problem is that North could have a few more HCP at this point, and either 2N or 3♣ could be a vialble contract.  But it's hard to criticise passing, and in fact losing -100 or -150 as they did is only a tiny bit below the Butler datum for the hand (-90) so there can be no complaint.

At another table, South decided to bid 2♣ over the opening 1♦; it's a little stretch but it does take away 1-level major suit bids from West and this is often useful.  It backfired here as it forced West into a takeout double (suggesting both majors) and that meant it was easy for East to bid 3♥ showing extras and hearts.  This was the final contract and initially there was a regret at not bidding game, but when it turned out that only a helpful club lead lets game make, it felt that justice had been served.

Another table it started 1♦ - P - 1♠ - P - 2♦ - P - 2♥.  This last bid is treated as a one round force by most players these days, and that makes it rather an overbid here.  It would not have been so bad had partner made a measured raise, but the East hand - thinking that it was so much better than a 2♦ rebid might be - immediately jumped to 6♥ and the opposition passed that out.  Definitely a partnership in harmony, when they both overbid by quite as much!

What should have happened?  Limited hands with 5♠ 4♥ are known to be a bidding problem when partner opens and rebids a minor.  The worse case is a 5=4=4=0  shape opposite a 0=4=4=5  shape where the bidding goes 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - P  and you play in a 5-0 trump fit with two eight card fits on the side. In recognition of this it is now common (particularly in the US) to play that a 2♥ responjse to either 1♣ or 1♦ openings is a limited hand with five spades and four or five hearts.  It goes by the name of "reverse Flannery" in some circles, and is part of the Bridge World Standard (you can find this on the internet) which has recently been revised following an extensive poll of experts and readers.

All pairs sitting East-West were left frustrated on Monday when they finished this hand - even the pair who did actually gain 13 imps. Thie bidding shown was a common start to the auction.  The question is what should the next two bids be?

This was a curious hand from Monday in that the slam in clubs is excellent and always makes, but nobody bid it and indeed East-West pinched the contract twice (2♦ and 3♥ both makiing) and three times North-South stopped in a part-score.  What should have happened?  

The auction shown was the most common start but not always,.  Twice, despite having as many HCP in their suit as in the other suits, East ventured a 2♦ overcall.  And once East chose to double 1♠. 

In addition, there were three pairs for whom the South hand lacked the strength to bid 2♣ and they all bid 1N on the first round, and were pleased (in two cases) to hear partner bid clubs next. One found a gentle raise then and stopped - the other bid 4♣ and partner got to game. It is more tricky after bidding 1N, but it counts as a 6-loser hand in support of clubs, so South should have insisted on game and that might have woken partner up to the possibilities. 

The more standard Acol auction is as shown - what should North bid next?  All four Norths in this position chose to raise to 3♣. This is a slight underbid, but you cannot be sure the ♦K will pull any weight, and anything more vigorous in the way of club support will make it more difficult to get to 3N when that is the correct contract. If South has a free choice now what would be best?  The choices taken were 3♦ (which led to 3N), 4♣ (which led to 5♣), 5♣ (which ended the auction), and pass.  None was successful in reaching the slam but there was one option which might have been - a splinter jump to 4♥.  When factored in with no spade support from partner, North can think in terms of a very small number of losers, and if partner is bidding this missing ♣AK, they must have a good reason. 

It is difficult to bid every good slam that comes your way, but it is a good exercise to find a plausible sequence, so that the next time something similar happens, you are better prepared.

This hand on Monday was the only excellent slam deal which arose (B18 was also a reasonable slam but only attempted once, and successully). The key to success in bidding the slam (and bidding the slam slam with the grand slam cold is still a success!) depended a lot on the choice made by West at this point in the bidding.

Clearly West has the option to bid a numebr of hearts. Here's how the options fared

• The one West who passed saw the opponents sail into 6♠ and the unknown distribution did not harm that contract.
• Five Wests chose to bid 3♥ which got 4♠ from North three times and double twice (nobody bid 4♥?!). One from each of those camps got to bid the slam, and of the others two got to make slam tries (rejected, surprisingly) and one simply took the push to 5♠.
• Eight Wests chose to bid 4♥ and here a key difference from the above auctions appeared. All North could sensibly do was bid 4♠ and this is such a wide-ranging bid that South could not be sure of the slam potential. When one pair passed out 4♠ North-South had no second chance, but in five cases East bid 5♦ (happy enough to be in 5♥ but giving partner a hint about the best lead). What was unfortunate about 5♦ is that it gave South a chance to bid 5♥ but only one South (well done Allan Sanis) did that. The two Easts who bid 5♥ denied South that chance. In practice it made no difference, and all these pairs stopped in game.

What do we learn from this?  The key point is that the more bidding space we take away, the less room the other side have to describe their hand - and here the chance to describe the hand was vital for getting to a slam. It was curious to see that both West and East had the chance to deny the opposition space.

This hand from Monday produced a number of swings - half the field played in game and half in part-scores, half the field played in spades and half in diamonds.

The auction shown was the start at half the tables and from this position three North-Souths reached game, three stopped out. There were three actions chosen : the immediate 4♠ bid was one of the games reached, but the other choices had mixed results. The thrice-chosen double reached game only once, and the twice-used 3♦ call reached game only once.  The key in the successful cases was that North bid when they got the chance, and South would not stop out of game after that,

The other auction start at six tables was 1♠ - 2♣ - P - P   to South and the field split evenly here, with three bidding 2♦ and three bidding 3♦.  It would come as no surprise that the three former ended in partscores, while the three in the latter category ended in game.

What does all this tell us?  It tells us that a number of players seriously undervalued the strength of the South hand. With a modicum of support in either spades or diamonds, we have a 3-loser hand here - so game must be close. In a competitive sequence it is important to try to get partner excited, and bidding 3♦ on this hand when you get the chance is the way to do that. Partner will not expect any more as you would always start off, were you to hold say 21-hcp, with a double of their bid.  The 3♦ bid shows playing strength and with four diamonds and a useful ♠K, North will get the pair to game.

One team produced an enoeurmous 93-0 score on Monday and this hand was their biggest gain,  The key decision was at this point and it produced a double figure swing in three matches. Some auctions started a little differently, thes ebeing 1♣ - 3♥ for those people whose 1N opening was strong and so the 1♣ opener included a weak no-trump hand.  What do you do now?

It was interesting to note on this hand from Monday that with 25 high card points between them, and balanced hands, there was only one pair out of fourteen managed to get to game istting East-West.  It is worth looking at what happened.

There were 9 instances where North opened 1N, and these mostly showed 15-17 but it also included one instance of 13-15 and some 14-16 openers too.  Over that there were six pairs showed the majors, one passed and the other two rather committed their side by bidding 2♠. Nobody moved towards game, and the best score went to the pair who passed, as they collected +300.  Why did everyone give in so easily?  It is because we like to interfere over their 1N opening, and that means sometimes we are lighter that this, and we become scared of going minus.

There were 4 instances where North opened a red suit, and over that East overcalled 1♠. These had more chances to get to game - or at least they did when West didn't pass out 1♠!   But none of them did get to game - two Wests did bid 2♣ after which East is worth trying 3N, but nobody did.

What about the auction at the one table that did get to 3N?  None of the above opener by North came to pass, because West opened the bidding in first seat. After that there was no keeping partner out of game.

It won't always work, but it's just amazing how often opening light works to your benefit. 

This hand is an easy enough game for East-West but five tables saw a bonus offered to East-West and in most cases taken up (to the tune of 800, 1100 three times, and 1400).   Why did they get lucky in this manner?

We need to look at the auctions which led to South (it was South in all cases) to bid over the 4♠ contract on which East-West had alighted.  There were two key factors in these cases, the first was was ambiguity about the strength of the West hand, and the second was South not managing to get a second bid in before the opponents reached game.  The most awkward auction combining these was  1♠ - 2♠ (hearts+minor) - 4♠ - P - P - ?    and the reason it is awkward is that West might be bidding this way with a bundle of high cards, or just long spades and some shape. 

Is it safe for West to bid this way - giving less information to partner as well as to the opponents? It is not totally risk free but if South has enough values to justify pushing their side to the three-level, then you are never going to be missing a good slam on this hand, so there is nothing to investigate. And if the opponents bid on you don't need to involve partner, you know you are going to double. 

Should South have avoided this trap?  There are some warning signs; an opening pass from partner and you holding only 7 hcp, and the bad club split might well make 4♠ difficult for declarer.  In practice two of the six presented with this problem did find a pass.