Welcome to the October bidding forum. Our first problem for the month is an interesting novelty, featuring exactly four possible answers, one in each denomination. 

Hoi-Ming Chan: 2. Not enough strength and not a good enough diamond holding for 3. 3 is an overbid as it is game forcing. 2 does not promise six. 3 is an overbid by about a king and a trump.

Leigh Matheson: 3. How else do we find our club slam?

George Zuber: 3. My bidding strength came from shape and unless there is a spade fit or partner has better than opening values game isn’t on. So I give my weak bid and see if partner has more to offer. If partner has only limit values and no spade fit, 3 is where we should be. If partner has more let him say so.

Boris Richter: 3. I don't have a maximum for a bid like 3 and I don't have four card diamond support for a splinter raise but I do have two five card suits and quite possibly a lovely double-fit.

Opening with ten points is not usually popular with the readers, but there don't seem to be many objections to opening this hand, with valuations ranging from minimum, to game force, to slam try. There were some objections to the choice of opening though:

Robert Black: 2. I meant to open 1!

Paul Tranmer: 3. I HATE that opening bid! Surely 1 would have been better? I'm now endplayed to bid 3 and pray a wheel or two doesn't fall off.

Göran Lindberg: 3. To open 1 on this hand is stupid. 1 is a better choice... or pass.

Gee, that's a bit harsh. I don't know if stupid is the right word... but you did have a bit of support from the magazine's expert panel:

Eddie Kantar: 2. Why didn't I open this hand 1 if I was going to open at all?

Bob Jones: 3. If I opened this hand, I would open 1.

Having chosen to open 1, several readers feel that we are now too weak to do anything else but rebid our 5-card suit:

Paul Gipson: 2. Better to show a minimum than do anything that might over-excite partner at this stage. Raising diamonds does depend on system a little (strong 2-4-4-3 hands start with 2) but xxx is not a great holding.

Bridge Baron: 2. Bridge Baron has a minimum opening hand. It can't bid notrump with a heart void. It can't raise to 3 with only three-card support for a minor. It can't bid 3 or 3 without more strength. Thus it sees 2 as its only bid.

Eric Leong: 2. I have to keep the bidding open and 3, 3 or 3 are all highly misdescriptive.

Rex Fox: 2. Pard usually promises another bid, spades are OK to try 2.

Erin Tewes: 2. I don't think this is enough for a game force.

Duncan Roe: 3. Really, I wish I hadn't opened. In the old days, I would have bid 2 to show a minimum -- but that promises 6 of them nowadays, doesn't it?

No, 2 doesn't promise six -- but 3 does promise a game force! As much as I usually hate rebidding 5-card suits, it is perfectly normal to do so in 2 over 1 auctions when you can't afford anything else. Partner will be well aware that you may simply be too weak to bid your 2nd suit.  

Jim Thatcher: 3. Spades are not strong enough to rebid.

Fred Altstock: 3. Have to show some clubs, but probably wouldn't have opened light.

Zbych Bednarek: 3. Show shape with a weak hand; over any rebid 4 (could be 5134 or 5035).

Stephen Bartos: 3. Don't know enough about the quality of partner's hand yet; will pass if she rebids diamonds.

Partner will not be amused at that double-cross; even in 1950s Acol, that auction must be 100% forcing. And even if partner weren't unlimited, I'd still be content to have a shot at game opposite a minimum 3 bid such as x-xxxx-AQJxxx-Kx. Further, the opponents' silence, with their known heart fit, makes it even less likely that partner is minimum:

Amiram Millet: 3. If partner has only 10 HCP, opponents are going to overcall (they have at least nine hearts), so this is the first step on finding where we belong.

Most of the 3 bidders were aware that the bid was game forcing, but thought the hand was up to the job:

Kristian Frimer: 3. Don’t think I am strong enough to bid 3, even though I know 3 is game forcing. If partner bids 3NT or 3 I will support his diamonds.

Bastiaan Korner: 3. I suppose it is somewhat against the rules, but what else?

Ron Landgraff: 3. Must look for game, 5 or 4 or even 3NT.

Damo Nair: 3. This is a decent hand with good controls and North bid diamonds, not hearts.

Tim Trahair: 3. Seems a good description of our hand. If North now bids hearts, 4th suit forcing, we will revert to spades and hope we find a reasonable contract.

Frank Campbell: 3. Don’t like to support diamonds yet with only a poor 3 card suit. I intend to bid 4 over either 3, 3 or 3NT but at this point either of my suits may be our right spot.

John Furedy: 3. Need to communicate shape, and though short of HCP, void in hearts should compensate.

David Monahan: 3. Now partner knows I am distributional and if he/she rebids diamonds, or 4th suit forcing, I will show my interest in game (or better) in diamonds.

It seems clear that 3 is an overbid. On the one hand, having opened a 10-count it is tempting to try to slow down the auction with 2. On the other hand, we opened this hand because of its great potential opposite a fit. So aren't we selling ourselves short if give up on the search for that fit?

It looks like we need a way to search for a fit without forcing to game. Top score:

Sydney Frish: 3. I opened a 10 HCP shapely hand vulnerable. To bid 2 would give the wrong information and 3 may prompt partner with a good hand to go over the top.

Rainer Herrmann: 3. 2 is misdescriptive, anything else is too much of an overbid, but I prefer 3 to a splinter.

Tony Treloar: 3. Don't like it, but it seems the best option.

Barbara Whitmee: 3. If partner passes with about 11 points than we are in the right partscore. If partner bids 3NT then I will take it out to the safer 5.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. In pursuit of a plus score.

John & Jennie: 3. North has 10+ HCP and at least 5 diamonds so support the diamonds with your 15 total points.

Ron Lel: 3. This is a matter of style. Some people play that 3/ show extra values (as do I). For those, there is only one bid – 2. Personally I think this style is sensible in a 2/1 system; I have always wondered how those who don't play this can show extra strength without getting too high.

Well, with respect to the 3 bid, the answer is simple -- they can't. The 3 bidders will land on their feet occasionally, but most of the time they will find themselves in deep water. However, I don't think the 3 bid falls into the same category. In the age of "support with support", I would hate to play a system that prevents me from supporting my partner with a minimum hand.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 3. With the fit, this hand is worth about 15 points, which seems to be at about the top of the "passable" raise to 3 in your system. Here in America, neither the 2 nor 3 rebids could be passed, even in a partnership that allows itself to pass responder's 3 rebid in a sequence such as 1 - 2; 2 - 3.

Sam Arber: 3. Not strong enough to bid 3, if partner passes 3 probably best spot.

Joe O'Flynn: 3. Too weak for anything else.

Tim Francis-Wright: 3. 3 has some merit, but it understates my diamond support. 3 would be better if I had a fourth diamond. (Opposite 10-11 HCP and long diamonds, 5 is not that great a contract on balance.) If I bid 3 and partner makes another move, then I will be fine, either because she has extra values or because she has spade tolerance.

Pat O'Connor: 3. What a heartless auction!

Roger Yandle: 3. Pard will expect 4 but my void in hearts makes up for it - pard should have 5 diamonds unless 2443. If she can't bid on after 3 then we're probably (hopefully) at the right level.

Manuel Paulo: 3. My support is not long enough to justify a 3 splinter bid, but I must raise.

Leading to our final, and most extreme option: the 3 splinter. This received virtually no support from the readers, and just one vote from the expert panel:

Kate McCallum: 3. 4 will be the right move when there's a diamond slam, but will get us way too high when partner's hand is something more normal like xx-KQTx-AQxx-Jxx. Even 3NT may be too high facing that sort of hand, but it probably has a shot. I wouldn't quarrel with a non-forcing 3 -- that could easily be our last plus score.

Ulf Nilsson: 3. Three small is not enough support for a splinter raise. 3 is more encouraging than 2.

Tom Moss: 3. Diamonds not good enough for a splinter. Partner would expect a diamond honour.

Toby Weinstein: 3. Not strong enough to bid 3. In US would bid 3.

Barbara Hunter, David Matthews: 3. Really not strong enough for a splinter so will just give support. Will see what partner does over 3.

Terry Dunne: 3. In my view, we would need either an extra diamond or more strength to splinter. Similarly, we're not really strong enough for 3. Whoever is bidding 2 can't count...and 3 is the only other bid I can think of.

The full deal:

652  A1093  AKQ63  J  1074  J752  J1092  KQ  KJ KQ864   7  109852 AQ983 ---  854  A7643

On our next problem, we were just about to bid to our normal 4 contract for an undoubtedly flat board. Then the opponents stepped in and provided us with a bunch of different options. Which should we choose?

Barbara Hunter: 4. I think this is safer than 3NT.

Sydney Frish: 3NT. Looks safer than 4 -- and would help partner if EW should try 4.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Either game looks unlikely; on the other hand, East should not make nine tricks.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. Points in the opp’s suit with weak hand, and nothing that we haven't shown already.

First, let's look at 3NT. The great thing about 3NT is "partner can convert when it's right". Good old partner, always knows what to do.

Sam Arber: 3NT. Balanced hand, let partner judge.

Tony Treloar: 3NT. Stoppers in spades, at least suggest the alternative contract, partner can convert with the right hand.

David Monahan: 3NT. Shows the balanced nature of my hand and my stoppers giving partner a choice if unbalanced/distributional.

Hoi-Ming Chan: 3NT. Close choice between 3NT and 4. 3NT is a choice of games-partner can convert to 4 when it's right.

Leigh Matheson: 3NT. 9 tricks are easier than 10. With a shortage partner can pull it to 4.

I kind of agree, but with some trepidation. Is it really right for North to pull with a shortage? Both opponents bid the suit, you showed a stopper; he probably thinks you already know about his shortage. Besides, I'd be more worried if partner doesn't have a spade shortage; that would mean his shortage is somewhere else...

Robert Black: 3NT. 9 tricks might be easier than 10 -- if they do not discover my diamond secret.

Terry Dunne: 4. I guess the cool kids will bid 3NT. But me ... I couldn't stand the "explanation" from partner that I need a stopper in all of their suits to bid no trumps.

Boris Richter: 3NT. Good intermediate cards for the only possible game.

"Only possible game" seems a bit much -- don't we have an 8-card heart fit and 26 points? Actually, maybe we don't...

George Zuber: Pass. We're a max of 23 points and a heart fit ... not enough for game in hearts or NT. They're vul with a max of 17, split 10-11 and 6-7 with 5 spades given the optional 3. Good chance to take them off, so it’s either a pass or penalty double for me.

George is either assuming that 3 is a preemptive raise, not invitational; or else he is simply downgrading his hand because of the spade wastage. Both reasonable positions, both with some support from the other passers:

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Partner's jump raise sounds more distributional and worried about spades than strong. I would not be surprised if 4 makes.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Defending may be best with better support for LHO's suits than for partner's. Double a second choice.

Alvin P. Bluthman: Pass. I have one to two tricks, and think I need more to double. For offense, too much of my values are in the opponents' suit, opposite a partner who must be short.

Ulf Nilsson: Pass. Do not expect both clubs and hearts to be breaking on this auction. Partner’s bid is based on shape rather than strength as no X of 1NT.

Göran Lindberg: Pass. My values say "no bid" and I usually listen.

Jim Thatcher: Pass. Opponents are at the three level.

Rex Fox: Pass. Values look soft, defend.

Given that we were about to bid a game and our vulnerable opponents have ventured to the 3-level, taking our compensation at 100 per trick seems a little pessimistic to me. Taking the more aggressive route:

Amiram Millet: Dbl. Suggesting a punish. Can't find a better action.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Can see plenty of penalty points for us.

Tim Francis-Wright: Dbl. Either someone just found a hidden Ace or they are going down.

David Matthews: Dbl. Opponents could be in trouble here so will suggest penalty to partner.

Despite all of the above, an undeniable majority opted to just ignore the intervention:

Margaret Reid: 4. We have enough for game.

Joe O'Flynn: 4. I like our fit.

Roger Yandle: 4. At MPs I'd be tempted to dbl 3 but 4 looks like a positive score after partner's jump raise.

Emil Battista: 4. Double a close alternative.

Eric Leong: 4. There is a good chance the opponents are going to sacrifice in 4. If not 4 should have some kind of play.

Tim Trahair: 4. Double is tempting but we could be in trouble if we find them with a double fit in spades and diamonds. 3NT also has attractions but we may find our cover evaporates quickly. North presumably is short in Ss and his HCP must be elsewhere.

Bastiaan Korner: 4. Hand looks bad but the Q and all these tens and nines may help.

Duncan Roe: 4. I interpret 3 as meaning "go to 4 with extra values, partner". My heart suit could be worse, and I could have had less points and still bid 1 last time.

John Furedy: 4. Looks to be a better chance than 3NT with 2 likely tricks in hearts on a spade lead.

Ron Lel: 4. Not getting into the trap of bidding 3NT on this hand (the T was a cute card Brad).

John & Jennie: 4. Opener is showing a 4 card fit for with 16-18 TP. With 10 TP in hand we are good for game.

Frank Campbell: 4. Partner has jumped so this seems automatic.

Barbara Whitmee: 4. Partner should have about six loses for the jump rebid. I have three winners so making four hearts is a good chance.

One advantage of 4 is the possibility of a 4 sacrifice (assuming we can beat that):

Damo Nair: 4. I can't imagine getting rich with these soft controls in 3x. Besides, there's a small chance that they'll bid 4.

Paul Gipson: 4. This is the easy bid, the problem may be on the next round over 4.

Ron Landgraff: 4. 3 is probably making. I'll double 4. If 3 is not making we will likely make 4.

Paul Tranmer: 4. Should be a safe make, and I'll double 4 if they bid it.

There are a lot of variables to consider in this problem, and the problem with bridge is we don't have time to properly evaluate them all at the table. Fortunately, thanks to modern technology, we can now approach these problems more scientifically:

Bridge Baron: Dbl. Bridge Baron projects that doubling will result in an average score of +111.5, and bidding 4 will result in an average score of +156.3... yet it doubles! Why? Bridge Baron assumes that South will be faced with the same decision at the other table, and so it calculates the average IMP gain or loss for each action. It projects that doubling will gain +0.46 IMPs, on average, over bidding 4, even though the average score for doubling is less than the average score for bidding 4. To see how this can happen, consider, by way of example, these simulation results on three deals: 500 vs -50 (11 IMPs), -960 vs -50 (-14 IMPs), 200 vs -50 (6 IMPs). The average score for doubling is -86.67, and the average score for bidding 4 is -50, yet on these three deals, the average gain for doubling instead of bidding 4 is +1 IMP.

Problem solved. The full deal:

3  K543  Q52  AKJ73  J10642  9  AK864  108  A987 AJ72   J  9652 KQ5 Q1086  10973  Q4

3 can be made, although several pairs failed to make nine tricks. Only three NS pairs (out of 13) competed beyond 3: two of these played in the making 3NT, while the third went three off in 4.

Emil Battista: 3NT. My heart bid should inhibit a heart lead!

Sydney Frish: 3NT. Not likely to get a heart lead, all else should be safe.

Bridge Baron: 3NT. Bridge Baron wants a bit more strength to really think about a minor slam. It doesn't really recognize the possibility that it has the perfect hand for slam, with fitting honors in partner's suits and partner's potential shortness in hearts. So with spades stopped, it simply bids 3NT.

Problem Three is this month's swing generator, with 39% of readers opting for the 3NT bid. Strangely, many of them had the same comment about why their choice was wrong!

Fred Altstock: 3NT. Happy to be in game. Hearts aren't that crash hot.

Terry Dunne: 3NT. Yes, hearts are likely to be a problem. Still, most defenders will lead a spade...

Tim Trahair: 3NT. If we are lucky partner may have a heart honour. We may well scramble home with 9 tricks before they remove our spade cover.

Frank Campbell: 3NT. My hand is better for 3NT. Hopefully my hearts are good enough.

Ron Landgraff: 3NT. What else! Looks like 6 diamonds, 2 spades and a club. 3 just directs the lead!

Sure, assuming the hearts do survive (unlikely), I wouldn't expect 3NT to present a challenge. But this is a bidding forum -- we expect more from our readers than just pedestrian games.

Amiram Millet: 3NT. If partner is going on we'll find our best slam or 5m. 3NT might be our best spot.

Kristian Frimer: 3NT. Nothing else to bid? partner has shown 12-18 and if he has max he will bid again after 3NT.

Really? Can partner really be expected to guess that we have concealed AJxx and Kxx support for his suits? Would he move again with xxx-x-AQJxx-KQxx? That's barely an opening bid in the first place.

Let's face it: this is a slam hand. The point of the problem is simply to determine the best way to get there.

Erin Tewes: 3. Cue, find out what kind of hearts he has. If two small, play in 5. He can’t have 3 small or he would have opened 1NT (strong) or raised to 2 (weak).

Joe O'Flynn: 3. Forcing pard to bid again. I don't like my heart stopper.

Ron Lel: 3. Starting with 3 to show my stopper and will hear what happens. If partner bids 3NT I will pass; if he bids 4 I will bid 4 hoping to hear 4.

Leigh Matheson: 3. We have a double minor fit. Partner may have raised hearts with 3 of them so partner is likely to have a heart shortage. Slam may even be on the cards.

My concern with the cuebid is, as usual, that I don't really know what it means. Does it explicitly agree diamonds? If not, the remainder of this auction will be murky at best. Much better to keep things simple:

Rex Fox: 4. Set trumps, looking for a heart singleton or void. If pard has a good minimum say xx x AQxxxx KQxx then slam is cold.

Ken Berry: 4. Looking for slam.

Damo Nair: 4. Just setting trumps. All we have to decide is whether there's a slam on or not. North with 6 diamonds and 4 clubs needs to show a control for 6.

Paul Gipson: 4. No rush to show the spade controls, let's set the trump suit and take it from there.

Manuel Paulo: 4. This raise defines the strain, and asks for control bidding.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. Lack of spade stops and heart support could be good news.

Boris Richter: 4. Seemingly a lovely double-fit.

Roger Yandle: 4. My hand looks good opposite partner's shapely minor 2 suiter. I'll make a slam try (prefer 4-4 clubs than 5-3 diamonds). Hopefully pard has longer spades than hearts. At MPs bypassing 3NT would be much harder.

Tim Francis-Wright: 4. At matchpoints, I would be worried about going past 3NT if it turns out slam is not in the cards, but at IMPs I just want to get the cuebidding started. As for which minor to suggest as a strain, clubs may turn out better if partner needs to ruff hearts in her hand.

Sam Arber: 4. 4-4 fit may be better than 5-3 or 6-3 diamond fit.

Sometimes a 4-4 fit is better than a 5-3, because playing in the 4-4 fit you can show a profit by taking ruffs in the 54 hand. However, that is only useful when we have losers in both side suits (hearts and spades).

Try it and see: whatever shape North has, there is no profit in using North's clubs to ruff hearts. It will simply result in an endgame where our spade winners crash on partner's diamond winners. (If we had some losers in spades, it would be a different story).

Even though there is no advantage to playing in clubs, setting clubs as trumps does give partner an easy chance to cue 4.

Ulf Nilsson (similarly Zbych Bednarek): 4. Although we belong in diamonds, it's better to set clubs as trumps. 4-4-4 will pinpoint the hearts. If we start with 4, partner might be in a jam with empty spades and short hearts. We'll never be able to sort it out with any accuracy.

Rainer Herrmann: 4. Time to set the trump suit to be followed by cue-bids.

David Matthews: 4. I am interested in slam so will just give preference at this point. Really depends on partner's heart holding or lack of it.

Paul Tranmer: 4. As the right 11 count would make 7 frigid, we'll proceed slowly here and hopefully exchange lots of cue bids to determine the right level.

The initial 1 bid came in for a bit of criticism:

Eric Leong: 4. Setting trumps and checking to see if I can coax a 4 bid from partner. I think the 1 bid with a weak suit and a possible slam oriented hand is a poor systemic choice to respond with.

Tom Moss: 4. Very suitable for a potential slam if part can control hearts. 2 may have been more informative than 1.

Göran Lindberg: 4. 1 was a big error. Hearts will still be in the picture after a direct 2 bid. I would rather see partner splinter hearts on my 2. Now I’m making a slam-try but partner is in a fog.

I do agree, my 1 bid was an error. In an attempt to make up for this hand, I have now stopped responding 1 with a good hand and a weak suit. So far my new policy has shown a small loss -- I've missed two 4 games, one of which would have failed!

David Monahan: 4. Acknowledge the 4-4 fit and wait to see what partner wants to do after the game force. Partner is clearly short in hearts (probably 4522 or 4513 or possibly 6 card diamond suit) and while 3NT describes my balanced hand, we could easily lose 5 or 6 tricks in NT.

Bastiaan Korner: 4. Could even be a grand slam; all points seem to be working.

Michael Smart: 4. Does 3 promise extra length (or stuck for a bid)?

Stuck for a bid.

Tony Treloar: 4. Presumably this is stronger than 5, hopefully this invites partner to start cue-bidding and we can find out if pard has 2 quick heart losers

Duncan Roe: 4. Show my preferred strain. Don't leap to 5 straight away, partner might have slam interest.

Correct. However, we do have 12% of the readers going off on their own with a jump straight to game. I'm not sure exactly what a jump to 5-minor means in a game forcing auction, but those who included a comment seemed to intend the jump as a signoff.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 5. If partner is 6-4, with a heart singleton (or void), we have a slam, but I don't know how to find out. So, I bid conservatively, to secure my plus score. Certainly, bidding 1, then 2 is not the way to start, especially as I do not want to find heart support, but rather a shortage opposite. How about a 2 bid on the first round?

George Zuber: 5. Partner is not much more than an opening bid with minor shape exposing us in hearts for a NT game call. Want to be in game and prefer the min 4-4 in clubs to diamonds. Partner still has an option but I doubt he will exercise it.

John & Jennie: 5. 16 total points plus opener's 12 is good for game in diamonds. Hearts are too weak for 3NT.

Barbara Hunter: 5. Partner looks like 6 diamonds & maybe 4 clubs so I think 5 is the best place.

John Furedy: 4NT. At IMPs, if partner has at least one more ace, 6 looks like a good bet.

4NT will probably get you to a good spot, but there are two flaws: (1) partner is unable to use any restraint with an unsuitable hand, and (2) we don't know for certain about the heart shortage yet.

The full deal:

J6  K  AJ8653  Q952  Q974  AQJ63  Q7  86  108532 952   102  K104 AK 10874  K94  AJ73

South bid 4 and stopped in 5, making 11 tricks. All other pairs played in either 3NT (also making) or a diamond partscore (at the tables where North failed to open).

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron doesn't even simulate partner's double unless there's an "obvious" reason to do so, which at this vulnerability would require five-card support for partner. So it simply passes.

John & Jennie: 5. Partner probably void in spades so bidding 4 says partner's TP = 25 plus my 7 TP in hand = 32.

I love accountants. They have a skill set that I will never be able to grasp, and they are willing (in exchange for large amounts of money) to manage those parts of my life with which I just can't be bothered. But bridge and accountancy are very different professions. Do you really think your Q, Q and Q are worth exactly 2 points each?

HCPs are not the answer. So how do you solve a problem like this?

Paul Gipson: 5. If in doubt, bid one more.

John Furedy: 5. Using principle of bid one more.

Rainer Herrmann: 5. When in doubt bid one more.

I don't know what is the opposite of an accountant, but those guys are the opposite of an accountant. But that's not the answer either.

One tool which many find useful is the concept of ODR (offensive to defensive ratio). This is discussed in great detail in one of my favourite books, Partnership Bidding at Bridge by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. It's a combination of high-card strength, shape, distribution of values, and type of values. ODR is a tricky concept, and not everyone agrees how to interpret it...

David Monahan: 5. High ODR, hand is better suited to play in our suit where my queens may be of help.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. My hand, with low honours and high spots, looks more defensive than offensive.

For the record, here is Robson's answer from the magazine:

Andrew Robson: Pass. Probably wrong in practice but it does look like down one - down one, a nine imp difference. Who knows, my 10 may be something in defence.

Göran Lindberg: Pass. This is one of those "on the job" decisions. Some of them are wrong.

The key questions, obviously, are (1) can we make 5, and (2) can they make 4? If the answer to either question might be Yes, then we should probably bid.

Question 1: can we make 5? Some say yes...

Tony Treloar: 5. 4 might be setting by a trick or so, but have to bid 5 in case either contract is making.

David Matthews: 5. Certainly can't leave 4 doubled with partner void in spades. There should be a reasonable play for 5.

Boris Richter: 5. Looks like an obvious pass, the thing is however that I just hate passing with partner's likely void in our opponents' suit and anyway 5 will make on a good day, anything more than this is probably suicidal.

... and some say no ...

Fred Altstock: Pass. Can't make 5 so let’s go for penalties.

Hoi-Ming Chan: Pass looks normal. 5 may go down.

Rex Fox: Pass. Does not look like this hand has much help to make 5, hope 4 fails

Ulf Nilsson: Pass. 4 tricks likely easier than 11 with my queens, although the length in hearts is a bit bothersome.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I didn't bid over 4 so can hardly do so now.

Question 2: can they make 4? Some say yes...

Stephen Bartos: 5. Can’t see any defensive tricks in this hand - so better to go on the attack.

Damo Nair: 5. I have useful cards for north, outside spades that is. I'm also afraid that 4 may make.

Ron Landgraff: 5. I don't like it but 4 is much too likely to make. We could easily have no defense in spades or hearts.

Tania Black: 5. We have 11 hearts, and I have possibly only one defensive trick.

Margaret Reid: 5. Not much defence here so will support pard.

David Read: 5. No defence to 4. Partner has a void

Paul Tranmer: 5. As it's not clear as yet who can make what, I'd prefer pard to declare than us to defend!

... and some say no ...

Erin Tewes: Pass. Hopefully we can make at least 3 aces and my spade. Don't know what hearts will make.

Sam Arber: Pass. Partner must have outside values. At IMPs pass at MPs may bid 5.

Barbara Hunter: Pass. Have a few points so think best to leave the double in.

Tim Francis-Wright: Pass. And lead trumps.

Emil Battista: Pass. My trump holding should provide an extra trick for us.

Alvin P. Bluthman: Pass. Partner's double should be penalty-oriented, because he is bidding over a raised pre-empt, but I don't think he can have much trump length. So, he must have some prime cashable honour cards, and my trumps may be the setting trick.

Terry Dunne: Pass. Partner has extras and we still don't. It must be easier to get 4 tricks in spades than 11 in hearts. Hopefully our queens can provide a trick on defence. On a good day, partner will have the diamond AK.

Duncan Roe: Pass. I think partner's double means business. My spade holding may help. Don't like the 5 level.

Duncan was not alone in thinking that the double was straight penalty, based on the system notes which say "takeout doubles to 4":

Tim Trahair: Pass. The system says double up to 4 is for takeout, so this double is for penalties. We don't have much to help North but might glean a spade trick and be able to help in the minors. Unlikely to make as many as two heart tricks in defence.

Robert Black: Pass. If partner has a spade void and his double was for takeout we shall need to discuss the system.

Certainly we do need to have a word about system. If you're expecting a spade stack in partner's hand, it might be useful to go back and have another look at the auction.

Yes, we do play takeout doubles to 4, and negative doubles to 4. However, partner's bid is not a regular takeout double, nor a negative double. It is a 4 overcall. The fact that it takes the form of an X on the bidding sheet, that can't take back the 4 bid. It just means it's a good 4 overcall.

George Zuber: Pass. My system has the option of penalty double or 5 exercised only immediately seated after the 4. Partner’s double is therefore for penalty only.

Still, in the end, this problem is really just another search for a plus score:

Roger Yandle: Pass. I've got a balanced hand with probably one defensive trick so defending looks like the best way to get a positive score.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. Easier take 4 tricks in defence than 11 for our own game ... plusses on your side in scoresheets (even +100) better than -100.

The hand is from a recent World Championship. North held void-AKQJ54-J642-AK7, so both games are actually making for a potential double game swing. It has been suggested that North would have done better to bid 4NT over 4, instead of doubling.

Obviously the decision on this board is simply "to bid or not to bid". Our point count argues for bidding, our shape and suit quality argues against.

If we choose to bid, 1NT is a straightforward option:

Emil Battista: 1NT. Making it easy for partner to judge what to do next.

Paul Gipson: 1NT. I'd rather get my values across than double without four hearts.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 1NT. And hoping that partner has clubs, so that I can run seven tricks.

Kay O'Connor: 1NT. May as well announce my point range and make it easier for everyone. Partner can't have enough to get carried away.

Frank Campbell: 1NT. With a balanced 16 count I can hardly do otherwise. The club suit is too poor to bid.

Barbara Whitmee: 1NT. Shows my points. Don't want to bid 2 with only one honour in the suit. Could pass I suppose, and if they stop bidding at the two level then I could bid 3.

One concern about 1NT is our lack of stopper in the opponent's suit:

Michael Smart: 1NT. Most descriptive game-going bid. Buy pard a drink when they cash 5 diamonds.

Sam Arber: 1NT. Seems best bid even without a diamond stopper.

Damo Nair: 1NT. What else? If I wait around to have a diamond honour to bid 1NT in these situations it will only be after I've lost many IMPs.

Rainer Herrmann: 1NT. This could be bloody. But if you deem 1NT too risky then why do you have this agreement in the first place?

As always, there is danger in 1NT; even more so when both opponents are bidding. Several people felt that the danger could be easily controlled:

Barbara Hunter: 1NT. You can’t get into too much trouble partner can always transfer I hope.

David Matthews: 1NT. Although 2 or double might be right at least 1NT right sides the hand and gets it off my chest leaving partner to judge what to do next. If I'm doubled I can still pull it to 2.

The readers' majority felt that 1NT was too dangerous, and voted strongly in favour of silence:

Boris Richter: Pass. A lovely pass :)

Hoi-Ming Chan: Pass. Given the opponents are vulnerable, they probably have their values. Dbl would require an extra heart, and 1NT is risky. 1NT may work out, but call me chicken: I'm passing.

Hoi-Ming Chan (2nd answer): Dbl. Too strong to pass, and bidding 1NT without a diamond stopper seems wrong. The AQ should compensate for the lack of a 4th heart.

Peter Oakley: Pass. Not a good time to show my strength - let's hear more first?

Amiram Millet: Pass. Partner might have less than 5 HCP. I have a flat hand. IMP, not Vul. I'm taking the low road.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. I am not in a hurry to enter the auction.

Some of the passers felt that there were bigger things in their future...

Tim Francis-Wright: Pass. I have three Aces, but the hand gets worse--a lot worse--after that. My best plan is to stay quiet and wait for 4 tricks on defense.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Let's see where they go.

Rex Fox: Pass. Looks like defence is more attractive opposite 5 points or less. Pard will try to overcall on any semi decent suit.

Tom Moss: Pass. For now.

Eric Leong: Pass. Pass for now. Double for later.

Margaret Reid: Pass. Forcing auction here -- maybe they will get too high (hope so) we are not going anywhere as not much left for pard.

Terry Dunne: Pass. Taking them off in 1NT or 2 at 100 per trick is surely our best chance.

David Monahan: Pass. Too dangerous to bid - better to wait and see if we can try and get a good plus in defeating their vulnerable contract.

Sydney Frish: Pass. The auction is not over yet -- so why warn EW early?

Jim Thatcher: Pass. The auction should continue for at least one more round.

Despite receiving only two votes from the panel (Tim Bourke and Paul Yovich), the Pass has been upgraded to 60 points. While on the topic of upgrades...

A comment I frequently hear from readers is "Why doesn't the moderator have the freedom to upgrade bids that are overlooked by the panel". Well, the fact is that Phil Gue and Peter Smith often upgrade the bids they like, and I sometimes apply further upgrades after I read their column (including adding scores for the bids that received no panel support at all).

However, please bear in mind that if the expert panel completely ignores your choice, it's not because they didn't think of it -- it's because they didn't like it. Having said that...  here's 40 points for:

John Furedy: 2. What else, given a five card suit?

Tim Trahair: 2. A good description of our hand but perhaps not its strength. If we double that is a better description of our strength -- but would prefer to have four hearts.

Ron Lel: 2. Actually close to passing this, but people respond on such rubbish these days. I don't care which of the "expert" panel bids 1NT. That is an awful bid and I wouldn't even bid it with a diamond stopper; I have no source of tricks. 

Ron, the panel agree with you that 1NT is not the right bid. Unfortunately they're not on the same page with respect to the 2 bid.

Zbych Bednarek: 2. Bid what you have... 1NT is bad without a stopper in diamonds, double is worse (you wont be able show your clubs over the opponent’s expected 3).

Bridge Baron: 2. Obviously strong enough to overcall, but with each partnership having about half the strength, there's no need to do anything forceful, at least not until hearing from partner. Bridge Baron won't double on this auction with fewer than four hearts.

George Zuber: 2. Despite my strength partner has max of 4 points. We're not going anywhere so 1NT would be folly. 2 for me.

Paul Tranmer: 2. This bid shows a good hand as pard has passed the 1 opening bid. I have absolutely no sympathy for anybody who bids 1NT here. It's a tired old trick that seldom, if ever, works.

Fred Altstock: 2. With partner not bidding let’s just bring in 2 to see what develops.

But the top score, with a clear majority of the expert panel, goes to the basic takeout double. A call that is rarely attempted in this sequence without four hearts, but the panel felt it was the safest action on this occasion:

Roger Yandle: Dbl. I'd like to have 4 hearts but you can't have everything.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. Owe partner a heart.

Ulf Nilsson: Dbl. Gives us a shot at competing without sticking our neck out too far.

Ron Landgraff: Dbl. Most flexible without much risk. If they bid on in spades and pard passes, I'll consider 3.

John & Jennie: Dbl. No stopper so can't bid 1NT so double for takeout.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Plenty of points and no special suit preference. They opened diamonds so North is unlikely to respond in that suit - would bid NT if he did anyway.

Tania Black: Dbl. There should be a play for 2 or 1NT.

Göran Lindberg: Dbl. Can’t say I’m proud of my bid, but it's better then pass. I envy the 1NT-bidders and feel a bit gutless.

There's no reason not to proud of that choice Goran -- it gives you the chance of playing in any of three denominations, which in turns minimises the danger of running into a penalty. A worthy winner.

The full deal:

82  97642  QJ8  1042  9764  K8  AK1096  Q8  KJ105 J105   542  KJ5 AQ3 AQ3  73  A9763

Thanks very much for all your answers and comments; I'll see you again in early December for our final forum of the year, where we announce the winners for the 2008 Readers' Race. Meanwhile, here are the totals so far (don't give up, Ulf might forget to put in his answers next month...)