After the World Championships I somehow couldn't get started writing a column. Why? I don't know. Or maybe I do: for some time I didn't fancy bridge.

The reason was simple, I had single-handedly thrown away our team's chances at the World Championship teams (contesting the Bermuda Bowl) in São Paulo.
On returning to Netherlands I learned our team mates for the Dutch Master League teams were ending their partnership. In short: I had had enough.
Now, almost 2010 (Sjoert wrote this column for the Dutch Bridgevaria.nl site shortly after Christmas 2009, -Ed.), I am glad to say my team mates (they agreed to postpone the break-up until after the final of the Master League) did extremely well, enabling us to make it to the Master League final. We will start that final trailing 17 IMPs (the carry-over from the round robin), but I hope we will begin performing in 2010 like we did most of the time in 2009: winning matches.

My best experience this year was the clinic I gave in the small town of Kockengen (Central Netherlands). In order to do something new I asked the participants five questions. Here they come:

What should South bid?

What should South bid?

What should South bid?

These problems kicked up some dust. After all, there are many possible solutions and many of these are neither completely right nor completely wrong. For my solutions: see the end of this article.

My own bridge performances were still not really great, until my stay in the US from the end of November until the beginning of December. Partner Bas Drijver and I participated in the Reisinger (one of the three most important tournaments in North America) during the North American Bridge Championships (the 'Fall Nationals').
The scoring in the Reisinger is board-a-match, a system hardly known in Europe (and therefore neither in Netherlands). In brief one can say it is team against team but scoring is in match points. Therefore per deal a team wins, draws or loses. The magnitude of the score difference per deal doesn't matter since the result per deal is either 2-0, 1-1 or 0-2 MP.

To European readers: perhaps it's a good idea to organise a board-a-match event.

To conclude, here are my solutions to the five bidding problems:
1. 1♥. Give priority to bidding a major five card suit above bidding a minor five card suit; the quality of the suit does not influence this decision.
2. 2♣. Do not bid 2♥ since this shows a five card suit.
Do not jump to 3NT directly since the hand is too strong for such a jump. All the more since the distribution of the hand is unsuited for such a 'final bid' in view of the three card spade support and the four card heart suit. Always investigate whether there is a major suit fit.
3. 2NT (forcing!). Describes strength and distribution (balanced) of the hand best. If there is a 4-4 spade fit or a 5-3 heart fit (see my remark at response 2) it will still be found — only later. After all, partner (who has five hearts and/or four spades then) will investigate by way of a conventional 3♣ bid. That is the reason 2NT has to be forcing: this way South can — for the time being — keep silent about his four card spade suit. He could not afford to do so if North could pass 2NT...
4. 2♦. A good hand but not strong enough to jump to 3♦. After all, that jump is game forcing. If partner is minimal (6-7 points) and has no fit in either of South's suits, bidding game is too ambitious. Having some extra strength partner will not pass 2♦.
5. 3♠. South has 'only' 13 honour points but since he knows there is a spade fit, he can add two distributional points (the singleton). Furthermore he has a good five card club suit and the very strong feature of the two top trumps. All this warrants a double raise to 3♠.

Perhaps I will continue this series of columns next year (depending on the result of the final of the Dutch Master League...).