Three of this month's problems were provided by one of our expert panellists, Larry Cohen, and Larry also appears as guest moderator of the bidding forum in the magazine. So make sure you grab a copy of the August issue and check out the article.

The first problem of the month led to a few queries about system, so let's get that out of the way first...

David Davies: 3. I can't double if partner can't.

Fraser Rew: 3. Double from either side would be penalty here. If partner can't double I certainly can't and game should be on somewhere, so I pattern out to give him the choice.

Dean Eidler: 3. It's a forcing situation so I can't pass. 3 would sound like 4441.

Göran Lindberg: Dbl. There is nothing "forcing" about this action....so takeout.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. For takeout; partner can choose a penalty pass.

Ulf Nilsson: Dbl. Takeout with extra values.

Ron Lel: Dbl. What sort of hand does partner have for his redouble? Is the pass of 2 forcing? Despite partner being a passed hand in my partnerships it would be. Playing with my partner I would bid 3, but on this forum double is the most flexible bid.

David Matthews: 3. I am going to assume partner's redouble signifies a maximum pass. So we have enough for game and it may be 3NT or one of the minors.

Tim Trahair: 3. So what does the redouble mean? The system doesn't provide any guidance. East's 1 response suggests he has some HCP and perhaps West has about 12, so it seems North is weak and probably can tolerate clubs.

It's true, AB Standard doesn't mention North's redouble. It doesn't mention West's double either; for some auctions we just rely on the basics:

Language of Bidding by Paul Marston: Redouble shows 10+ HCP and interest in penalties...

Official Encyclopedia of Bridge: ...any strong hand with a minimum point count of about 10, usually with a defensive hand ... With a fit for opener's suit, a redouble is unattractive because it makes it simple for the opponents to find a fit.

Bridge Bidding Made Easy by Eddie Kantar: ... neither promises nor denies support for partner, although in an expert game he is likely to be short. Most experts with four card support disdain the redouble ... with a big fit it is unlikely that East-West can be punished at a low level.

Goren's Bridge Complete: If, as is probable, the opponents' elect to bid, they will fall into your trap and you will be in position to make a devastating penalty double.

With those comments in mind, now seems a good time to announce that the top reader vote, and the equal top panel vote, went to the devastating penalty double.

Bruce Crossman: Dbl. Redouble shows 10+ HCP and shortage in clubs. So partner's pass figures show shortage in spades and clubs. Looking for penalties or possible game in NT.

Jameson Cole: Dbl. Everyone at the table is playing a deep game besides me. I think West is 3442 and partner 3343. We should get 500.

Alan Jones: Dbl. We have most of the points. Partner appears to have hearts and no support for my suits. This could easily be 800 to us.

Alvin P Bluthman: Dbl. Expecting partner to pass for penalties. Because he had the opportunity to support my suits, and failed to do so, I can only conclude that he cannot do so. Therefore, he should hold hearts and diamonds, not clubs or spades. If he pulls, it will probably be to 3; I will then bid 3, showing a diamond stopper and asking for a heart stopper for 3NT.

Barbara Hunter: Dbl. I expect partner may have 4 if not he can bid 2 or 3 or 3.

Martyn Rew: Dbl. If partner stopped bidding because he has hearts, double will pick up more than a part score.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. What is pard up to? I'll double and maybe it will give us a result. After all we should have 25 points.

Some of these comments suggest that double is intended as penalty, despite the singleton. Bidding partner's hand for him, you might say. A gutsy call, but it has to be a losing action when the LOTT man is moderating.

Many of the doublers explicitly stated that the double was intended as takeout:

Sydney Frish: Dbl. With combined count of at least 25 HCP hopefully on way to 3NT unless North should prefer conversion to penalties.

Damo Nair: Dbl. What's the catch? I don't get it, I have 16 HCP good shape and controls on top of North making strongish noise. If I can't double with this hand I don't know what hand I can re-open with!

(I have it on good authority that Damo is a very good card player, so he is accustomed to adding a point to all his valuations).

David Monahan: Dbl. Double gives a good description of my hand while partner has the option of leaving the double in with a reasonable holding in heart -- Rule of 4 and Rule of 6 will give partner a good indication of the possibilities including the NT option.

Kajsa Larson: Dbl. Game is not out of question. Since partner didn't double 2, she hopefully doesn't have many wasted points there. If he bids 2, I pass; if he bids a minor, I will raise.

Ron Landgraff: Dbl. Maybe partner will do the right thing. With clubs and hearts he can bid 3NT, else pass and hope for down 1 or 2. If he has good hearts, 2x will be juicy.

Much of the confusion surrounding this problem came from our 1 rebid:

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Fixed by failure to pass and pull.

Robert Black: Dbl. Did I rebid 1? That sounded a bit weak. We seem to have 25 HCP and partner's redouble may be penalty oriented. Perhaps my 1 bid stopped him doubling 2. If he thinks I have some hearts we are in trouble -- maybe the end of a partnership.

Andrew MacAlister: Dbl. It is going to be difficult to persuade partner that I have a good hand after I showed a weak distributional one with 1. Partner may have been waiting to penalize 1 so now I give him the chance at 2.

Paul Gipson: Dbl. Not a problem unless double is wrong, but I am maximum for my (third seat) opening and I cannot let them play in 2. I have already suggested that I do not like hearts by bidding 1.

So what does that 1 bid mean exactly? Let's go back to the textbook...

Official Encyclopedia of Bridge: ... the opening bidder will not take a further bid at his next turn unless he has a distributional hand unsuited to defence.

That does cast some doubt on the wisdom of our 1 bid, but does it necessarily mean we have shown short hearts?

Whatever it means, Larry was not amused by all this apparent disregard for the textbooks -- an understandable response from someone best known for writing bidding texts. He awarded 70 points to the double, with the top score going to this much less ambiguous takeout action:

Amiram Millet: 3. Catering for hands that will play 3NT better than 4. Even a black Slam is a possibility. Doubling 2 isn't always best.

Bastiaan Korner: 3. Don't want to miss vulnerable game

Tony Treloar: 3. We hold game values and partner's pass suggests that 3NT (or in the absence of a heart stopper 5) appear better than 4.

Sam Arber: 3. Partner did not double 2 so no strong holding there. Feel partner should do something.

John Furedy: 3. Partner is promising 10+ HCP, so if he has a stopper in hearts, 3NT is a good bet.

Roger Yandle: 3. Pard can't double 2 nor support spades so looks like a balanced 10-11 count with 2-3 small hearts. I can't double on strength alone (opps might have Axxx-AQxx-Jxxx-x opposite xx-KJxxx-xx-xxxx). However I think I need to make one more try for game before giving up.

Ian Smith: 3. A splinter asking partner to choose a suit.

I'm not sure that 3 is a splinter, but one of the experts was thinking along similar lines (as well as expressing concern about our earlier 1 bid).

Eddie Kantar: 4. I thought bidding over a redouble showed a weak distributional opening bid? In any case I'm jumping to 4 to try to make up for past sins.

Eric Leong: 3. We belong in a game. The only question is where?

Terry Dunne: 3. With Larry Cohen moderating, 'Pass' won't score very well. It's our hand, with 3NT being the most likely spot. 3 'forces' 3NT to be played by the more suitable hand. There's a fair chance partner would pass a double and I can't imagine taking 2 off three tricks.

Well, hopefully we can all agree that partner has 10+ points, so it's true that passing our combined 25 count won't score very well.

The remaining options involve simply describing our hand and letting partner decide what to do:

Boris Richter: 2. The obvious thing to do, saving bidding room with 2. Seemingly giving partner the wrong information, showing six clubs and five spades, but then again we could have bid 2 immediately with such a hand (or opened 1).

Niek Van Vucht: 3. Bid out my shape, showing better than minimum, and suggesting 3NT if partner has heart stoppers. The singleton heart, and a probable club fit suggest that penalising 2 will not be profitable.

Bill Bennett: 3. We must be close to game values, but NT is unattractive if North does not have two heart stops. He may bid NT over my 3, or EW may be tempted to raise hearts.

Emil Battista: 3. Passing is too wimpish and I am too wimpish to double.

Rainer Herrmann: 3. Looks to me like a good description of the hand. With 4045 I would tend to cuebid in this position.

Hoi-Ming Chan: 3. Bidding my shape out.

David Hester: 3. Flexible; giving partner a chance to do the wrong thing.

John R. Mayne: 3. I'm strong enough to show the shape of the hand. Partner will do the right thing.

Tim Francis-Wright: 3. It is time for partner to admit to her heart stopper.

Zbych Bednarek: 3. Showing shape (4135 or 4045) with points on way to 3NT.

We have been told that this deal is from a world-class event, but we don't know which one. As usual, if anyone recognises the hand, please send us the full deal and I'll add it in. 

Fraser Rew: 4. With better hearts and worse diamonds I would bid 3. But I'll make sure we get to the right strain, level be damned.

David Monahan: 3. Keeping it simple -- at this stage, no certainty that we should be at 4 level at all.

This is a common issue that comes up in bidding forums: just how many tricks is playing in the correct suit worth? 3 lets us stop at the 3-level, but 4 gives us twice as much chance (or more) of playing in a fit. Which of these is more valuable?

Ron Landgraff: 3. May be the last making contract for us. I can bid 4 later. After 4?

John R. Mayne: 3. Not strong enough for 4; we may not be done yet.

Michael Ware was the sole supporter of 3 on the expert panel (after all these years he seems to suddenly have become shy about the 4-level).

Here is my problem with the above two comments: it seems to me that if we should be in diamonds, then the opponents will be happy to pass us out in 3. While if 3 is right, the opponents will bid again -- in which case you intend to show the diamonds at the 4-level. In other words, you are happy to bid 4, but not until you've given the opponents the option of defending 3.

The rest of the panellists were choosing between double and 4. Let's start with the minority:

Nigel Guthrie: 4. "What it says on the tin" again. With aces and good clubs, double is a close 2nd.

Terry Dunne: 4. Shows what I have. Admittedly, I'd like to be a bit stronger, but any other bid is likely to suggest greater strength (when I have to bid again), or to misrepresent the shape of my hand.

David Hester: 4. Thanks for telling me what to do!

Peter Oakley: 4. Can't decline the suggestion, with this ideal hand for the convention!

John Furedy: 4. Even if pard has a spade stopper, 3NT is not a good bet. I'm not sure whether my partners would interpret 4 as diamonds and hearts, but if this is the interpretation, that seems the best bid.

Tim Trahair: 4. Hand doesn't seem strong enough for 3 -- we probably can't make 3NT even if North has spades well stopped. So it is Pass or 4.

Fred Altstock: 4. Hopefully partner has hearts and 4 could be on. Give him a choice.

Bill Bennett: 4. I am reluctant to double with a decent 5 card major, since North will find it hard to bid hearts with three. But I do not want to bid 3 and find partner with four diamonds and one heart.

Göran Lindberg: 4. I saw double as an option but to many bad things can happen. Better just to drop a bomb and hope for the best.

Denis Haynes: 4. If I double west can bid 3 and cut out my partner.

Alan Jones: 4. If that's what it means, let's bid it. (Given that this bid is available, anything else would give partner a wrong picture of the hand).

Emil Battista: 4. Probably should have stuck to my first choice -- double. 4 gets shape across but not playing strength.

Rainer Herrmann: 4. The only options seem to be double or 4. 4 is risky but is the pressure bid, which could gain in many ways.

Boris Richter: 4. The real value of this hand lies in the exceptional distribution we are holding.

Sydney Frish: 4. With potentially a 5-loser hand there is a good chance to reach a game with limited support from partner.

There is one problem with the 4 bid (and it's not that it gets us too high).

Kajsa Larson: Dbl. The bid 4 is maybe better, but I am afraid to miss a good club contract.

Sam Arber: Dbl. Don't want to miss out on club suit so prefer double to 4.

Niek Van Vucht: Dbl. At least 3 card support for any suit partner has. Will raise partner's bid.

Ron Lel: Dbl. The most flexible bid as this really does look like a 3 suiter. 3 would be a close second.

Alvin P. Bluthman: Dbl. The most descriptive call, only two cards from the classic 1-4-4-4. Perhaps a system upgrade: 2NT shows the minors, unless a 3 advance is pulled to 3; then it shows the reds.

That's one good use for 2NT -- panellist Eddie Kantar suggested a different alternative:

Eddie Kantar: 4. Finally I would get a chance to use 2NT as I think it should be used -- hearts and a minor, a hand not strong enough to jump to 4. But then the *&^% footnote tells me it shows the minors. I will not be a happy camper if partner has long clubs.

While double (and Alvin and Edwin's 2NT suggestions) keep the clubs in the game, not all the doublers are on the same page regarding a club contract:

Frank Campbell: Dbl. At least two places to play and at least four hearts. If partner bids clubs I will pull it to hearts.

Jameson Cole: Dbl. Ok, so I've got an extra pair of deuces, it still looks like a takeout double. I plan to follow up with 3 over 3. If opps go to 3, and partner doesn't compete, then I'll pass.

Another advantage of double is the possibility of defending:

Eric Leong: Dbl. Why should I give up on getting to a club contract or defending 2x?

David Matthews: Dbl. What else? 4 is too unilateral taking us past 3NT and also preventing partner from applying the axe.

Margaret Reid, Manuel Paulo, Larissa Cowlishaw, Martyn Rew: Dbl. Partner may pass for penalties.

David Davies: Dbl. Red suit internal quality is poor, if partner passes the score may be okay.

Tony Treloar: Dbl. Partner might have a penalty pass, in which case I like the aces. Not quite the suit quality for a vul 3 level overcall and not wanting to force to the 4 level.

Hoi-Ming Chan: Dbl. The hearts and diamonds and horrible for leaping Michaels, and you don't mind defending 2X with three aces. Bidding 3 or 3 on such poor suits doesn't appeal either.

Roger Yandle: Dbl. I'll be a little bit nervous if pard leaves it in but I've got quite good defensive values so could well be OK.

The possibility of defending 2 doubled is a powerful argument for the double, although some see it as an argument for the other side...

Tim Francis-Wright: Dbl. 4 could work out well, if partner has a good hand, but there is no guarantee that she does. If she has a good hand, double will often cater to it -- the only real risk is that she will leave it in when we want to be on offense.

Damo Nair: 4. Seems like a good hand for the Leaping Michaels or whatever its called. Bypassing 3NT is a bit of a problem if North shows up with 5 intermediate spades. But, that's balanced by the fear of letting them make 2 doubled!

Ulf Nilsson: 4. May push us overboard, but at least it puts extra horses in the race. Won't double at the 2-level with a void when alternatives exist.

Robert Black: 4. I seem to have hearts and diamonds, and do not fancy partner passing a double.

On balance, the arguments for double seem to outweigh those for 4, and the panel vote was decisive, 14 votes to 6. 

This problem was rejected from the June issue out of fear of a unanimous vote for 4. I've always thought this was a good problem though, and Larry agreed to give it a run this month. I'm pleased to see the panel supported my at-the-table choice of 3:

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Keep 3NT in the frame.

Ulf Nilsson: 3. Not a thing of beauty, but it gives us the best chance of finding a major-suit fit.

Göran Lindberg: 3. There is no other bid.

Terry Dunne: 3. If I end up playing a Moysian fit, I'll explain to partner that I was showing a stopper...

David Matthews: 3. I think I must do something with AAK as partner has overcalled Vulnerable. Partner will expect a 5 card suit for this but I am stuck and at least this keeps both 3NT and 4 as options.

Paul Gipson: 3. Truly horrible, but I am not prepared to gamble 3NT so will make the lowest call I can make and hope to survive. At least club ruffs will be in the short hand :)

Zbych Bednarek: 3. On way to slam if partner has short clubs and at least one major.

Niek Van Vucht: 3. Enough for one bid; will pass 3NT or 4.

Emil Battista: 3. For another zero.

Emil, the point of bidding forum is NOT to get zero. Lucky for you, you're not very good at it, and you've failed again -- you'll have to settle for another 100.

Ron Lel: 3. At this vulnerability partner should have a nice hand, so I have to bid. I hope to hear 3NT. I will raise 4 to 5. The problematic event is when partner bids spades. Does this show 4 or not? I would bid 4 over 3, assuming that partner is showing a stopper. 

Amiram Millet: 3. Going forward. Partner is strong. Slam is possible, but 3NT, or 3M might be best.

Sam Arber: 3. Unable to ask for club stopper. If partner repeats diamonds will bid 5; slam may be on if he has singleton club.

Hoi-Ming Chan: 3. Hoping partner can bid 3 or 3NT. If partner raises, 4 may have play as the short hand is ruffing the clubs. If partner bids 4, I raise to 5.

Hoi-Ming was sitting West on this deal, but understandably does not seem to have recognised the hand from this angle. I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Hoi-Ming (age 21) and his partner Leigh Matheson (23), who won their first national open title at the ANC this week (ANC Open Pairs).

Eric Leong: 3. Keeps alive the possibility of game in hearts and spades alive and also 3NT. Since partner didn't double 3 and I have three clubs there is a good chance partner is short in one major or long in the other major. Otherwise, partner might be able to bid 3NT with something like Kxx-xx-AKJ10xx-Kx.

Frank Campbell: 3. Looking for 3NT. I have 3 quick tricks so we should be ok to go on in diamonds if partner cannot bid it.

Sydney Frish, Margaret Reid: 3. Ongoing. Maybe pard can bid 3NT.

David Monahan: 3. Pre-emptive bids can make thing awkward -- keeping the bidding a simple as possible gives us the best chance of finding our contract despite the lack of bidding space.

Denis Haynes: 3. Shows suit and points allows partner to repeat diamonds or show stoppers for NT.

Kajsa Larson: 3. The problem of having to play 4 on 4-3 is hopefully not that big, since I probably ruff clubs in dummy.

Tony Treloar: 3. We are holding close to game values, must give partner the chance to bid 3NT is they hold a club stopper.

The main alternative to 3 is the cue bid. A cue usually shows support for partner's suit, but the panellists see this auction as an exception:

Andrew Robson: 4. First message of a cue bid in preempt auctions is Choice of Game a la Zia.

Kate McCallum: 4. Cue-bids above the 2-level don't always promise a fit.

Manuel Paulo: 4. To wait and see partner's rebid.

Tim Trahair, Damo Nair, Joe O'Flynn: 4. If he has a major he will bid that or otherwise subside in 4.

Boris Richter: 4. We can't expect our partner to be holding a stopper, he would have bid 3N. He will be holding a stopper only with some very strong hands where 6N has a play. We have to guess and I am guessing with 4.

Even after reading the expert arguments for 4, I still see this problem as a close choice between 3 and 3NT. Do we really want to be bullied out of 3NT by a preempt from a non-vulnerable 21-year-old Australian?

John R. Mayne: 3NT. You Aussies like to preempt like I do; the 3 bidder might lead something else.

David Davies: 3NT. Nobody ever has a solid suit for a 3 opener.

Jameson Cole: 3NT. Preempts are rarely solid-suited and East failed to raise, so I think partner has clubs stopped. If I get doubled, I'm going to 4.

Dean Eidler: 3NT. Bid 3NT quickly/confidently. No one has a good suit these days, also no raise.

Ron Landgraff: 3NT. What else! Partner still has a bid. Maybe I'll win the post mortem! After all, how many clubs can they run? I really don't want to hear the answer! 

The answer is 7, but that's not really the point -- one hand proves nothing.

Bridge Baron: 3NT. The choice is a little tricky, as Bridge Baron feels that a bid of any suit should show five or more cards in that suit. So it bids 3NT and hopes it doesn't lose the first six or seven tricks.

Bastiaan Korner: 3NT. How else do I get there?

Unfortunately the panel did not agree, so the 3NT bidders have to settle for a poor 50 point score.

Finally, for those who are unwilling to choose between a four card major, a stopperless notrump, or a directionless space-consuming artificial force, there is one other obvious alternative:

Fred Altstock: Pass. Can't see 3NT or game!

Bill Bennett: Pass. Cannot reasonably expect North to hold solid diamonds plus a club stop. I need another 2 or 3 points to invite game in NT. Have to accept that pre-empts can be effective.

Alvin P. Bluthman, John Furedy: Pass. I assume that, if partner had a four-card major along with his diamonds he would double, not bid 3. Given that constraint, no good advance is available.

Joe Lentz: Pass. It's 3NT or pass. If I had a fitting diamond honor or a club stopper it would be 3NT. I guess I'm a chicken for passing.

Peter Oakley: Pass. Partner is likely to have a club stopper, but 3NT looks too dicey -- and 5 must be too high?

Tim Francis-Wright: Pass. There are lots of ways to bid or try for game, but taking our plus might be fine here.

Roger Yandle: Pass. Too flat to push on. I'll take what's probably a positive rather than risk a negative. Maybe that's too wimpish being vul at IMPs - probably should just bid a confident 3NT.

The pass was supported by Stephen Burgess and Peter Fordham, enough to give it an award of 30 points. The full deal:

KQ82  Q7  AJ9765  3  9  10843  10  AKJ8764  J754  J95  KQ42  Q9  A1063  AK62  83  1052

West's uncharacteristic suit quality would have put a quick end to a 3NT contract, but the spade fit was easily uncovered after South's 3 response. East, with trump length and the diamonds locked up, felt that 4 would be a struggle, but the contract made a redoubled overtrick for 1480 points.   

Before getting into our 4th problem, there is one more systemic issue that needs to be addressed:

Manuel Paulo: 2NT. As I see it, a stronger action than a direct 3NT.

David Hester: 3NT. We need an agreement on which bid shows heart stoppers, this or 2NT first. Lacking one, I go for natural.

Damo Nair: 2NT. What's the difference between a direct 3NT & a Lebensohl approach? Procrastination?

I have to confess, I've played Lebensohl all my life and I've never been comfortable with the distinction between 2NT/3NT and a direct 3NT. Let's bring out the textbooks again:

The Lebensohl Convention Complete by Ron Andersen: A direct jump to 3NT denies a stopper in the enemy suit. Partner will pass with a stopper, or else explore for a better contract. 2NT followed by 3NT shows a stopper, and asks partner to pass.

I don't know how common this distinction is these days, but we've given everyone the benefit of the doubt and awarded 2NT and 3NT the same score.

Zbych Bednarek: 3NT. Bid what you can make.

Fred Altstock: 2NT. I think game is on.

Barbara Whitmee: 3NT. Partner should have diamonds stopped.

Tony Treloar: 2NT. How good are partner's doubles of weak 2. Close enough to go for game.

Jameson Cole: 2NT. I don't think the clubs are good enough to warrant 3. Slow (to 3N) shows a stopper and about these values. Let East lead up to partner.

Peter Oakley: 3NT. Tempted to bid 3 to leave partner opportunity to show spades first. But 3NT denies defence possible heart ruffs, so should still be best contract

Sydney Frish: 2NT. Not a game I would bid with enthusiasm but at least I have better than double heart stopper.

Ron Landgraff: 2NT. Shows 10 points and a stopper. If partner was a little light (as he surely can be), it won't be the first time we have been down in 3NT.

Kajsa Larson: 3NT. I follow a rule learned from Jan Lagerman on SyskOn: with QJxx in the opponents suit, bid 3NT even with minimum (with AKxx in the opponents suit, do not bid 3NT even with maximum).

The principle here is that with AK(xx) you have 7 HCP being used to take just two tricks, leaving not many points outside to find the rest of your tricks. With QJxx, you are taking those same two tricks with just 3 HCP, essentially making your hand 4 points stronger.

That's a great tip, although I'm not convinced that this hand is even good enough to be called "minimum" opposite a balancing double. The almost universal opinion was that 3 was enough to describe our hand:

Rainer Herrmann: 3. 3NT looks tempting, but the vulnerability is wrong for bidding close games and West might prefer to lead a diamond against 3NT and not a heart.

Joe O'Flynn: 3. Can't pass 2, my 10 HCP look too good for Lebensohl.

John Furedy: 3. Considering I'm forced to bid, I've got a nice hand.

Ian Smith: 3. Expecting to bid 3NT over a diamond response or raising 3 to 4.

Bill Bennett: 3. Hope partner will either bid 3 or request a heart stop.

Paul Gipson: 3. I will not hang partner for balancing. He can still ask about a heart stop if strong.

David Matthews: 3. If EW were Vul I would definitely pass but Non Vul I think it's better to play in game our way in 3NT or 4.

Göran Lindberg: 3. If partner has very good cards its always best to go middle of the road. Its not up to me to win every board.

Boris Richter: 3. Looks obvious, if partner is stronger we belong in 3NT. In 3NT we can certainly hope to develop some tricks with those spades we are holding and some club tricks as well.

Frank Campbell: 3. My hand is at least invitational to 3NT which I will bid over 3.

Terry Dunne: 3. Not enough to pass, too much to use Lebensohl and pass 3, not strong enough to use Lebensohl and bid 3NT, right strength and shape to bid a direct 3.

Roger Yandle: 3. Pard could be balancing with something like Kxxx x Axxx QJxx in which case leaving the double in or unilaterally pushing on to game could be wrong. If he can't bid over 3 then we probably haven't missed anything. At MPs I'd be more inclined to leave the double in.

Larissa Cowlishaw: 3. Partner hasn't bid yet, could have a good hand -- if partner bids 3 will go 3NT.

Tim Trahair: 3. Showing reasonable values. Don't fancy 2NT and then a 3NT rebid with diamonds wide open. Presumably North has no more than five diamonds otherwise he might have bid them rather than double. If his next bid is 3 then we can chance 3NT.

Amiram Millet: 3. Partner's Double is in balancing position. 3NT, and even a black Slam is still possible.

Tim Francis-Wright: 3. The only problem with 2NT, then 3NT is that partner need not have the Rock of Gibraltar for a balancing double. If she can show extras over 3, then I can try 3NT.

Bridge Baron: 3. This hand doesn't qualify for a penalty pass (make the Two of Clubs a heart, and you've got Bridge Baron's attention.) So Bridge Baron's bid is simple: a natural bid in its longest suit. Bridge Baron feels that it's not particularly close to being weak enough to go through 2NT Lebensohl.

Robert Black: 3. Too strong for Lebensohl. Hope partner bids 3 for my stoppers.

Duncan Roe: 3. Well over minimum for a first-round pass, with a nice club suit. So bid clubs directly.

Niek Van Vucht: 3. Will bid 3NT over partner's 3 or 3.

A third of the readers chose to defend, showing total disregard for the run of trashy reopening hands that have appeared in this column in recent years.

David Davies: Pass. Heart holding is wasted in non-heart contracts.

Ron Lel: Pass. I rarely pass auctions like this but here I have decent hearts and a diamond stiff. Also the clubs are not that great for a 3NT contract. I just hope I am not hanging partner here.

Barbara Hunter: Pass. A good chance of scoring 500.

I'm looking at the scoring table in the back of my cheat sheet, and I don't see 500 on the list. The only scores listed are 470, 570, 670, etc.  

Emil Battista: Pass. A sure positive. Only fools are certain I am sure of that!

Ulf Nilsson: Pass. Going for the most likely plus score.

John R. Mayne: Pass. Take the money and run.

Margaret Reid: Pass. At least we will have a plus score, Game is doubtful for us (maybe).

Oh I see, you guys are looking at the undertrick table! Yeah, a common mistake, but that's not the right scoring table for this hand. 

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Partner's protective double may be off-shape and quite weak.

Fraser Rew: Pass. Though if it makes partner will stop making modern-style aggressive takeout doubles, which would be a shame. But I don't think that it will so I take a likely big plus. No doubt he'll be 4045 if I pass and 4243 if I pull.

Alan Jones: Pass. On balance we stand to make more in penalties than we can achieve by competing. Anyway, West may decide to rescue!

Alvin P. Bluthman: Pass. I expect to defeat 2X; I need to beat 2X only two tricks to approximate a nil vul game. If partner has the strength for us to make game, all the better - 2X will go for 500 or more. A technical question for bidders, based on how strong you expect partner to be, playing Lebensohl in response to a passed-hand TO dbl, is a direct three-level advance forcing for one round? If partner had not been a balancer, would it force to game?

Eric Leong: Pass. If partner made a light balancing double you are in your right spot. If partner made a balancing double with the type of hand that would have made a direct takeout double of 2 if given a chance you are not going to lose very much if at all by passing 2x if game makes and if your side can't make game you are a winner. Finally, you are a winner if partner has extras so you can score extra to beat your possible games when slam is very unlikely or iffy.

Bruce Crossman: Pass. Meets the 'rule' of 6 and 4 for a penalty pass with comfortable spade lead. Expect them to be at least 2 off and likely 3 and we may have a mis-fit.

David Monahan: Pass. Rule of 4 and Rule of 6 suggest defense may be our best option.

For those unfamiliar with the rule of 4 and 6 (including me), Roger Yandle has given me the following explanation.
Rule of 4: The number of trump tricks in my hand + the level of the contract must be at least 4.
Rule of 6: My trump length + the level of the contract must be at least 6.

Translated into English: we can beat 2 if I have four trumps and two trump tricks. The rule of 4 and 6 doesn't say anything about our making slam though:

Dean Eidler: Pass. Easy pass. If 6 makes cest la vie.

Bastiaan Korner: 3. This hand from Bermuda Bowl 2007 -- we can make 6 but EW made 2 doubled. It was also in bidding quiz Dutch IMP magazine (summer 2008); 12 passed, six bid 3.

My Dutch is probably not as fluent as your English, so Bastiaan, can you send me a copy of the full deal, and we'll find out what Noorden had for his dubbel. (Postscript: the full deal has now been published in the October issue of the magazine.)

Bill Bennett: Pass. We must have 28 HCP yet game in a suit looks unlikely. Better for North to be declarer in NT.

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron doesn't have a natural 2 bid in its book, doesn't have a heart stopper, and doesn't have an unbid suit that it would bid when partner will have a chance to bid again. So if 1 is a psyche, it's paid off against Bridge Baron (unless, of course, West takes a preference to 2!)

Hoi-Ming Chan: 3. Ouch. I'm tempted to bid spades, but how would partner take that. If 3 is a stopper ask I'll bid that (it should be, as double can show hearts, and 2NT the minors).

The problem with all the artificial methods abounding these days, today's youth don't recognise a natural bid when they see one! All the (natural) spade bids received some support from the panel and from the readers; let's start at the top:

Sam Arber: 4. 3 loser hand partner should get message . not much needed for slam even though partner is passed hand ,but too hard to find out

Ron Lel: 4. Natural of course. Again not system induced but up to an understanding with partner. The only real worry here is that I will be forced in Hearts. Hopefully partner has some Heart cards to put paid to that possibility. Even if I am forced I should have a good chance of making on sheer power.

Tim Francis-Wright: 4. I do not want to get too cute, lest West discover that his bad hand with 1-5 in the majors is in fact quite useful.

Fraser Rew: 4. What I expect to make. Maybe 6 is the top spot but opposite a passed partner I just can't see a likely sequence to get there.

4 does get the message across quite effectively, but wouldn't 3 show much the same thing?

David Matthews: 3. After partner has stretched to keep the bidding open I will tell him I have a very strong hand with a good Spade suit. We might still play this in a slam.

David Davies: 3. Opponents have fallen on their feet and I can't lead a heart so double looks dangerous.

Paul Gipson: 3. Naturalish, showing a stop in spades and will pass 3NT, hoping that partner has a double heart stop. I'd like to bid 4, but the hand could collapse on a heart lead through partner.

Naturalish. Well, you do have a stop in spades -- maybe a few stops if the opponents broach the suit for you.

Not surprisingly, the most popular spade bid was 2, taking it slow while we try to decide what to do.

Amiram Millet: 2. Natural and strong.

Manuel Paulo: 2. Natural.

John R. Mayne: 2. Start slow; let's see where we land.

Zbych Bednarek: 2. for sure should be natural on spades, looking for 3nt from prt's hand

Göran Lindberg: 2. Forcing with stopper in spades.....will be more trouble later i suspect.

Jameson Cole: 2. I don't like 4, if I get tapped in hearts and diamonds. If partner has something extra, we may still get to game.

Fred Altstock: 2. Showing partner that I have spades under control. Don't think I can bid 3 with four diamonds.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 2. Strong and natural. You have better spades than the opener (who is limited to A9765 or thereabouts), so why not suggest playing in that suit?

Boris Richter: 2. This is a very unusual hand. Is partner holding a spade void or more likely 1444 or even more likely 1435. In any event EW are vulnerable and they are not very likely to fool around. 2, let's find out where our fit in a minor lies first. Bidding 3NT is too committal.

Dean Eidler: 2. Very hard problem. Showing a stopper and one round force.

Alan Jones: 2. We have the balance of points, and spades looks to be our best fit!

Joe O'Flynn: 2. What will happen if I bid 2 ? It looks like game for us ,but where ? Let's see what partner will do.

Despite all the support for those spade bids, current BF rules state that the top score goes to the single bid with the most votes. So, by the narrowest of margins, top score goes to:

Terry Dunne: 3. Admittedly not the right shape, but the only way I can show the strength of my hand. Even with a minimum takeout double in the passout seat, 3NT from north should play OK.

Ulf Nilsson: 3. Asking for stopper.

Niek Van Vucht: 3. Asking to heart stopper for 3NT, also showing a strong hand.

David Monahan: 3. Cue bid better indicates my strength and, while my Loser count could be very good - no fit is guaranteed. With a stopper in heart from partner, NT will have a good play especially with such a solid spade suit.

Joe Lentz: 3. Hopefully this forces us to game. God only knows where we will end up.

Rainer Herrmann: 3. If North is a bridge player he will bid 3NT over 3.

John Furedy: 3. If p has a heart stopper (likely), 3NT should be a good bet.

Eric Leong: 3. Partner is never going to play you for this hand so you simply have to take charge and take a view. The best contract is 3NT played by partner when he has something x-Q10xx-Axxx-Kxxx. 3 has to be a command to bid 3NT. You show a good hand. You can't have hearts because you would either bid hearts earlier or doubled 2. You can't have a minor or both minors as you would have bid earlier and obviously you have a spade stopper.

Sydney Frish: 3. Perhaps 3NT seems natural choice - but with East's spades so weak he may cash four hearts and at least A when 5 could be on.

Tim Trahair: 3. Stronger than double and forces North to bid again. 3 suggests we are comfortable to play in any other suit or in NT if he has hearts well stopped. Hopefully North will deduce we have values in spades.

Tony Treloar: 3. Wonder what the penalty on 2 would be? Partner is very like to have the hearts well stopped on the bidding. 5 probably has play anyway although West has length in the minors.

As usual when we throw a freak hand into the forum, there are a wide range of minority bids. The strangest of these is a unilateral leap game in one of the last denominations where you would expect to play a hand like this:

David Hester: 3NT. He cannot have the faintest idea what I hold, so let's make a bid he has to pass. He has about 10 points including (I hope) a double stop in hearts.

Damo Nair: 3NT. North has hearts, I have spades and points. Sounds like 3NT! How rich are we going to get doubling 2? Something is fishy, I'm bidding what I think I can make. Ok, I'll settle for -3.

Margaret Reid: 3NT. Pard has hearts so NT could be a winner for us.

Martyn Rew: 3NT. Partner must have good heart cover for his double.

Ian Smith: 3NT. With my Heart void I expect partner to have Hearts stopped.

And finally, there's the double. Returning to where we started on Problem One, we have a feeling that we would like to double the opponents, but we have a real problem with trumps. What does a double show in this auction?

Alan Jones: Dbl. We have support for both minors, and partner may well pass for penalty. (Who knows? maybe West will show a preference for spades!)

Barbara Hunter: Dbl. Partner is likely to have hearts if not we are going places in the minors.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Get partner to show a suit or direction for NT.

Ron Landgraff: Dbl. If partner bids a minor, I'll bid 3 asking for 3NT which will then be played from the right side. If he passes with hearts, we may or may not do well! If he refuses 3NT, we will play a reluctant 5/6 of a minor.

Roger Yandle: Dbl. Looks like E is 5/5 or even 6/6 and pard has balanced on shape. I'm assuming dbl here is for take-out (i.e. short in hearts with spade suit hence no original dbl) but will be reasonably happy if pard decided to leave it in. Hopefully he can overruff W when N tries to get rid of his spades. If pard takes dbl out to a minor then I'll cue bid 3 looking for 3NT.

Bruce Crossman: Dbl. Pard does not have five hearts (would have bid them instead of dbl). East is likely to be 5-5 in majors at this vul. So dbl - if partner passes expect to put them at least two off. Risk is a slam makes if partner has the two vital aces. 

I believe that a double in this situation traditionally shows a penalty double of 1. Not sure what it says about the other suits, but if we're lucky, we might be able to arrange to defend this hand.

Emil Battista: Dbl. There should be blood on the floor after thirteenth trick. Mine if there is no further Bidding Forum entries.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Will West jump back in with spades? We could well take them for a bigger number than the minor game would get us.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. Interesting problem. Looks like the opponents have a fit in hearts but if partner is prepared to sit this I can't see where they are going to make 8 tricks. We may be close to a diamond slam but it all depends on partner's next action.

Robert Black: Dbl. Is East wearing a funny hat? Partner's double in 4th seat has not promised 2 heart stoppers, A and K to make 6NT. So even 3 off should be a profit.

This problem was provided by a reader, but unfortunately I have lost the details. If anyone wants to lay claim to it, please send me the details so I can publish the full deal and give appropriate credit.