There were plenty of interesting hands this week. For example, on deal #6 our opponents bid an ill-advised notrump slam, which we comfortably set two tricks. I figured that that would be a certain top, but I was surprised to see on the traveler that the only other pair that had played it at that point had actually bid 7NT. The defender sitting in my chair behind the declarer held the ace and queen of clubs (declarer's suit), as well as protected honors in two other suits. Not surprisingly, he had enough sense to double.

The most challenging hand to bid, in my opinion, was #13, the very first hand that we played. I was sitting in the East chair.

When my partner made a negative double, I immediately counted my losers. I only saw five (one heart and two in each minor) and considered bidding 4♥ instead of 3♥. It was hard for me to imagine where I might dispose of all those little clubs. Losing trick count says that everything after the third one is a winner, but that does not mean that in practice you can always take a trick with the ♣6 on the fourth round. Plus, the strength seemed to be on my left. Could I really count on both kings? Right or wrong, I wimped out.

My partner also downgraded his hand because of the chance that the spade honors might be useless, which indeed they were. He raised me to game, and after a little more thought I passed. If the ♥K had been on side, I might have been able to win all the tricks. As it was, the small slam was cold.

Sometimes, you just have a magical fit that only the experts can seem to divine. In this case, however, I think that we could have done better. I think that my 3♥ bid was correct. Nine tricks could easily have been the limit. However, after my partner's raise to 4♥, which I interpreted as showing at most eight losers (he actually had six), I think that I should have cue-bid my void. This hand has one very peculiar attribute – by itself it is not very strong at all. However, almost any kind of assistance from partner will be greatly magnified.

My partner would probably be confused by my cue-bid. One round earler I was willing to settle for 3♥, and now I seemed dissatisfied with 4. If partner responded to my cue-bid with 5♥, I could just pass. With any other bid – even 4NT – I could jump out of system and try 6♥.

Is this just "playing results"? Maybe, but I suspect that it would have provided us with a reasonably safe way to find a cold slam. That would have been a really nice way to start the evening.