To start with, congratulations to David Cordon and John Burville on winning the Open Pairs.

They had a mid-60 percent game on Monday but with only a 52 percent on Friday, they thought they had not come close to hanging on and David was so sure he hadn't won that he left the club without waiting for the scores !

Well, none of the chasing pairs had made any forward move so the 52 percent was enough and congrats to them. Finishing in second were John Glynn and Elizabeth McKee with Phil Shadick and Steve Ball putting in a strong second session to finish third.

Also, in my article of September 25 it seems I was premature in announcing the revised dates for the Sectional. I understand that this may not now happen until sometime in November, so keep your ears open for an announcement from Chairperson Katrina Van Pelt.

This hand occurred during the Ernie Owen Individual night, not an event for sophisticated bidding. However I think it clearly demonstrates the advantages of using 2 over 1 Game Forcing rather than the former Standard American of the Charles Goren era if bidding with a regular partner.

Let us look at both hands and see how the bidding should develop.

Dealer North ªAx &Copy;AKx ¨ A109xxx §xx Open 1 Diamond

South ªx &Copy;QJxx ¨KQx §AQ10xx Respond GF 2 Clubs

I held the South hand and now heard my partner, a good player, bid 2 No Trump.

This is a bad bid for 2 reasons.

1. Playing an opening 1 No Trump to be 15-17 points, this bid shows a minimum hand of 12-14 points.

2. Your 15 points are all prime and relate better to suit contracts. This also means that, if no trumps is the best strain, it is likely being played from the wrong side.

In order to, now, examine my next bid, I need, first, to digress and discuss something referred to as a Reverse Bid.

In most cases, this is a rebid by Opener that forces preference between 2 suits at the 3 level; e.g. a).1§ - 1&Copy;/1ª - 2¨ or b).1¨ - 2§ - 2&Copy;/2ª. a = vg 17+ points and is forcing for, at least, one round. b=g 15+ points. Even though one is already in a GF situation, most play this as showing, at least, a King better than a minimum.

Following up on with this theory, partner's 2 No Trump might still have a 4 card heart suit. Hence I now bid 3&Copy;. This is about the minimum suit quality for this bid rather than supporting diamonds.

Our bidding now proceeded 3NT - 4¨ - 5¨.

My 3&Copy; follow up further points up another reason not to bid 2NT as it now presented partner with a bid that was going to be a complete guess.

Last week I happened to mention to Robert Todd that pusillanimous was one of my favourite words. He laughed and said I must use the same dictionary as MacKenzie Myers. Here I think 5¨ over 4¨ pusillanimous redoubled.

4¨ is NOT a bid where one is running from 3NT out of fright. It clearly carries a slam invitation and, having bid two suits and now supporting a third, most likely has a shortage (singleton or void) in the fourth (here spades).

Partner now should want desperately to bid Roman Keycard Blackwood. Is 4NT here RKB or a further signoff? If faced with this dilemma I would not risk it and would make, what must be, a forcing cue bid of 4&Copy;. Then, over 4ª confirming the shortage, now be able to bid RKB.

Following up on my previous article, the correct response would be 5ª, showing two Keycards (¨K §A) and the ¨Q. Partner can now count, at least, a good play for 7¨. Spade, spade ruff, 3 hearts, 6 diamonds and 1 club are 12 tricks. The Jack of hearts is, here, trick 13. Without it one has 3 3 hearts or the club finesse as other chances.

I saw no reason to bid over 5¨ giving us a bottom. Lesson learned. In an individual, forget science.

Now let us examine a good 2 over 1 sequence.

1¨ - 2 § is an obvious start. Now the reason for playing 2 over 1 kicks in. In the old days, one could not now risk bidding only 2¨ as this was not forcing. But in 2 over 1 it is and would be an almost unanimous choice in a bidding quiz.

Now 2&Copy; for reasons as above but at a lower level. I am not sure what the next top choice would be. 2ª or 3&Copy; don't really describe one's holdings. 2NT is likely to wrong side a possible contract. I prefer a further waiting bid of 3¨.

Now I think my hand can risk a splinter of 4ª. The bidding seems to indicate that partner has something in hearts and we should be OK at the 5 level if this bid constrains partner to signoff. Now RKB etc leads to the grand.

If by chance I had had a hand with a 1 5 1 6 distribution, one would show this with 3&Copy; over 3¨. Again one is at a level that allows for constructive further development.