Before starting our first forum for 2009, I'd like to make a formal welcome to all the 1st-time entrants joining us from Sweden this month. This column has attracted a lot of interest up north due to Ulf Nilsson's win last year, and 9 of the Swedish entries have made it on to the leaderboard (450 or higher).

I closed last year with a promise that if you send us all your toughest problems, you'll have an inside track to a high score -- now it's time to see if it actually works.

Roger Yandle: 3. Gee this hand looks familiar! Presumably pard is max with four spades. It's unlikely she'll have a heart stopper but since I don't know West it might be possible. Not sure what I'll do if (when) pard bids 4.

Emil Battista: 3. Unanimous?

Roger was South on the actual deal, and Emil was West. Sadly, a little knowledge can be dangerous, and knowing the full deal they were able to avoid the doomed (but top-scoring) 2NT contract. Emil's choice of 3 was not a hit with the panel, but he did have plenty of reader support:

Lindsay Coker: 3. Cannot pass this on our point count. If partner has heart stoppers he can bid 3NT, otherwise probably pass.

Kajsa Larson: 3. Hopefully partner can guess that I have a lousy four card heart suit, and that 3 can be a 4-card suit, since I didn't support spades.

David Hester: 3. I am assuming that Stayman promises a major; if it does not, this problem is much harder, and my best shot might be 3 in the hope that partner will read it as an enquiry about his heart stops. (But will he?). If it does, all is well: I am denying spades and showing four hearts with no stop and moderate strength.

Barbara Whitmee: 3. Partner will realise I have four weak hearts.

Henri de Jong: 3. Source of tricks and gives pard the chance to bid 3NT with a H stopper

Tim Trahair: 3. This tells Partner we have enough points for 3NT, 4 but no stopper and 4 Ds. If he has good Hs, which seems unlikely, he can bid 3NT.

Bastiaan Korner: 3. Tough but 3 looks like an overbid.

Duncan Roe: 3. With at least 25 HCP between us we should make something, but perhaps not 2 or 2NT.

Michael Davy: 3. which says-do you have a heart stopper?

Dean Pokorny: 2NT. What else? 3 would sound forcing, pass is absurd...

3 is one way to find out if there is a heart stopper, but there were no less than three alternative stopper asks suggested:

Jameson Cole: 3NT. Direct denies. Hope partner is on the same wavelength.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 2NT. I hope partner has a stopper.

OK, that last one isn't a true stopper ask, but we all have to rely on hope occasionally. Jameson's 3NT, denying a stopper, is part of the Lebensohl structure; playing Lebensohl, 2NT shows a stopper and 3NT denies one. However, Lebensohl only applies on the 1st round; 2 followed by 2NT is a simple non-forcing invitation.

Mats Hedstrom: 3. Ask for stopper. If no stopper we will bid 5.

Hoi-Ming Chan, Aake Sjoeberg: 3. Asking for a stopper.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: 3. This may be ambiguous, but how else am I to get partner to bid 3NT with a heart stopper?

Paul Freeland: 3. Please do something sensible partner. If the rebid is 3 then that's where we'll play!!!

Paul Tranmer: 3. Bid 3NT with a heart stop please, else describe. I'm beginning to wish I had passed 1NT which, with a poor 9 count, I might well have done!

Also having doubts our choice of 2 on the first round:

Alan Jones: 2NT. I'm not sure I want to bid Stayman with this collection! Even a raise to 2NT is marginal.

Tom Moss: 2NT. I don't think much of the 2 bid.

Martyn Rew: 2NT. Ouch! Serves me right for a stupid initial Stayman response.

Robert Black: 2NT. What I should have bid last time! If game goes down on a lead they should not have found, I have a written apology for my (former?) partner.

Michael Burt: 2NT. Why didn't I bid 2NT to start with?

Strangely, not a single panellist objected to the 2 bid. It's worth noting that many people play 2NT as a transfer to diamonds, forcing them to bid 2 with any balanced invitation (as David Hester suggested in his comment). The alternative method, playing 2 as a transfer to either minor, comes with its own set of flaws -- no system is perfect.

For whatever reason, our original intention here was to rebid 2NT (or 3NT), and most people intend to continue with the original plan.

Pontus Silow: 2NT. The same bid I would have made without West's intervention.

Damo Nair: 2NT. Shows almost exactly what I have?! Doesn't it? The only alternative worth considering is probably 3NT.

Erin Tewes: 2NT. This is what I was going to bid anyway, wasn't it?

Rainer Herrmann: 2NT. What I would have bid without the intervention. I do not see any alternatives.

Michael Smart: 2NT. Yuk - stuck with my normal rebid (assume 3 would be forcing and imply 4). If partner has max he can bid 3 to be sure or 3NT with stop.

A few people thought the heart suit was not a threat:

Terry Dunne: 2NT. Partner and I have 6 hearts between us, so maybe they won't run. This has to be better than a 4-2 spade fit...

Christer Enkvist: 3NT. Wouldn't surprise me the least if east has a heart void.

Tony Treloar: 2NT. Tough problem! Describes the hand, invitational with 4 hearts. Partner would be entitled to think you have a stopper though. In my dreams East is void anyway.

Fred Altstock: 3NT. Should have enough for game.

Dean Eidler: 3NT. In a funny way the hand looks better rather than worse now. Assuming we don't lose the first five hearts of course.

Taking the opposite view:

Leigh Matheson: 2NT. Without the overcall 3NT is mandatory. But West's overcall says he has 5 ok hearts and outside entry(s). This means partner needs a double heart stop in order to make 3NT. An invite will do. Partner can still bid game with a double heart stop.

Sartaj Hans: 2NT. I suppose I should underbid now that they have bid one of my suits.

For the record, Bridge Baron did his usual simulation on this deal, returning an expected value of 37 for 2NT, and -90 for 3NT. A clear indicator that our hand has gotten worse, not better.

Ken Berry: 2NT. The bid to make when you don't really want to bid.

John R. Mayne: 2NT. Rather than going wrong on strength or orientation, I choose to go wrong on both.

Ron Landgraff: 2NT. Can I double partner? Does his spade bid show five? A maximum? Even if he has a max 3NT may not make, but it is imps and RHO didn't support!

Paul Gipson: 2NT. Looks like a classic double. Oh, can I not double CHO? He may have five spades but will presumably be forced in hearts and threatened with overruffs, so pass does not look great. I'll just transfer the problem to him, invite and let him work it out.

I have a useful bidding technique for hands where you want to double your partner; more details in Problem Two.

Manuel Paulo: 2NT. After the Stayman failure, and despite West's overcall, I should show my balanced shape and limited strength.

Joe O'Flynn: 2NT. Back to pard. He'll know I have hearts.

Kay O'Connor: 2NT. Partner's spades may be as bad as my hearts and at least 2NT specifies my point range. Fortunately, Partner is an expert and will figure my bid out.

Peter Oakley: 2NT. Partner will now know I have four hearts, but without an honour I'm not happy to see him squirm in an unlikely game contract.

Richard Morse: 2NT. This is right for values and I don't fancy our chances in spades any more than no-trumps, particularly since the spades could be splitting badly on the bidding.

Denis Haynes: 2NT. Cant support spades and maybe the hearts will hold in NTs. The points are light for 2NT but a possible 6 card fit in spades may be worse.

Eric Leong: 2NT. I can't pass. The only available cheap nonforcing bid is 2NT.

Mats Nilsland: 2NT. I like to give partner a chance to do something intelligent - even if I don't know him/her...

Ron Nelken: 2NT. Inviting game, partner can hopefully cover hearts.

Zbych Bednarek: 2NT. The lesser lie; our side has points for 2½NT.

Next up, we have the longest answer we've ever received to a BF problem. Ron's answer eclipses the previous record, which was set (and broken 12 times) by Jill Courtney. I couldn't even imagine where to start editing it, so we're printing it in full.

Ron Lel: 2NT. Nick, this is not a good problem for a bidding forum because we don't know enough about the agreements in use. What does 2 mean? Would partner always bid 2 with a 4-card suit, or does it show a maximum? If the agreement is that partner passes with a minimum, then I have 2 options here - 3 or 2NT. 3 would show a hand with long diamonds; I don't have that, however the 2 bid suggests that NT isn't making unless I have 8 or 9 fast tricks. Anyway as this is unchartered territory, I will bid 2NT, the bid I would have made without interference. However if 2 shows four spades and a maximum, the situation is quite different. Now a 2NT bid from me is redundant unless you like playing 2NT as a forcing transfer to 3NT, as partner will always accept BECAUSE she has a maximum. So 2NT has another meaning -- scrambling. In other words, the sort of hand we have, invitational, but with reservations and having at least one other place to play. As in both cases I would bid 2NT, I will do so here, but really feel like I should abstain.

I have two responses to this comment. Firstly, my name is Brad, not Nick. Nick left the magazine in 2003. Are you just trying to get back at me for constantly forgetting where Laos is? ☺

Secondly, I think it is very rare for even a regular partnership to put that much work into Stayman. This problem does highlight the need for further discussion about a convention that I'm sure many of us take for granted. Here are some more thoughts about how this sequence should be played:

Fraser Rew: 2NT. Whatever it shows. Last time I bid 2 in this sequence I got told off by my partner and this hand shows why. 2 may be off with game cold, or may be off the same number as game. Pard may even have a stopper.

Conny Wahlgren: 2NT. Especially if North promises a heart stopper with 2.

Sam Arber: 3. Partner should be maximum, possibly may have weak 5 card spade suit with no good rebid, probably has heart stopper so 3NT seems reasonable as likely to have fillers in minor.

Göran Hestner: 2NT. We don't know if the 2 bid promises anything else besides four spades -- might also promise a maximum. West probably have some values in at least one of the minors, and if he has not he has a good hearts that might give 5 tricks. 2NT also gives opener a chance to bid 3 in minor as a suggestion, or 3 in case 5 card major might have been an exception in the NT-openers hand.

Frank Campbell: 3. I can't pass 2 and AB Standard system notes say we are playing cue raises so 3 is out. Pard will hopefully get the right inferences from 3. With lousy hearts and no spades 2NT in the first place may have been the better response.

We do play cue raises, but this is not a cue-raise situation, as 3 here would be invitational. Even if there was any doubt about this, (a) 3 would have no preemptive value at all, and (b) on this auction South cannot have a hand where a preempt would be appropriate.  

This has been a long and difficult problem; so it's fitting that we finish with the simplest choice, and the one that Roger chose at the table:

David Davies: Pass. Game was borderline with my not fantastic 9 points and now the 2 call means the defence will go well even if partner has a heart stop. This is the best call to stay low, I think we are unlikely to go plus whatever we do.

Peter Nuoristo: Pass. I hope pard has five spades. Looks difficult to find a better contract now.

Boris Richter: Pass. Probably best, we don't have a vulnerable game at stake and it doesn't look good in NT.

The full deal:

AK95  107  Q962  A84  Q42  AKQ943  84  96  J1087 J   1053  Q10532 63 8652  AKJ7  KJ7

Note that the 9 has been swapped with the K -- at the table NS were playing a weak notrump so we have adjusted the problem to fit AB Standard.
North's 2 made eight tricks, while 2NT would have lost the first six heart tricks. There are 11 tricks available in diamonds.

Fraser Rew: 3. Can I interest anyone in a 1NT opening (whatever it shows?)

Niek Van Vucht: 3. Showing a minimum opening without a fit.

Christer Enkvist: 3. With 5323 (xxx in clubs) it is much harder. Now it is a no-brainer.

John R. Mayne: 3. I see no other obvious way to find the 3-3 fit.

Normally bridge is about finding 8-card fits; here we have an unusual situation where our goal is to find a 7-card fit. We all have a good laugh when we see top players end up in a 3-3, but sometimes it can be hard to avoid.

Tim Trahair: 3. Difficult to know what to do. Seems North has two or fewer spades, four hearts and four diamonds. Pass seems too risky, so I plump for playing in a Moysian fit.

Manuel Paulo: 3. I don't want to emphasize my five card suit, and a Moysian fit may be our best strain.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: 3. Spades are too weak and hearts aren't long enough. Yes, I know the 4-3 from the 3-side is enticing, but with bad splits likely it's not for me.

Boris Richter: 3. Hoping partner is holding five diamonds and four hearts, passing is just too extreme since they have seemingly at least a nine card fit.

Pontus Silow: 3. Partner has either at least two spades or at least 9 red cards. If 9 reds, it is more likely to be 4-5 than 5-4. If doubled, retreating to 3 looks sensible.

3 is certainly the best chance of a 5-3 fit, but it's also the best chance of a 3-3 fit. Therefore...

Ken Berry: 3. Hopefully this is a full-Moysian, not a 3-3.

Michael Smart: 3. Have to opt for the known 7+ card fit (will accept a 3 invite).

Ron Lel: 3. 3 would almost certainly show 4. Partner should be aware that I might make this bid on a 3 card suit.

Paul Tranmer: 3. As my 1 opening bid promised 5, pard should be aware that my 2 bid could show only three in a 5332 shape hand. At least we are in a 7 card fit and the moysian fit could play well.

One advantage of 3 is the matchpoint scoring:

Sam Arber: 3. Can't rebid 3, bid 3 as matchpoints rather than 3, only other option is pass.

Terry Dunne: 3. The choice is between 3 and 3, with 3 having the matchpoint advantage. I do not rebid a suit without 6 of them.

And another advantage (or disadvantage, depending on your point of view) -- 3 is the choice most likely to get us to game:

Nigel Guthrie: 3. If partner raises, then 4 is game, whereas 4 would not have been.

Richard Morse: 3. My hand has improved but partner has passed, and will surely bid again if he has the shape needed to make game. I cannot see much point in passing or in angling for 3NT, even if I knew how to do the latter.

Dean Pokorny: 3. I have a great hand to play the heart game in moysian-fit... With a weaker hand I would have rebid 3.

Frank Campbell: 3. If I bid 3 North may try for game so I prefer to bid diamonds hoping he is 4/5 in the red suits or can bid 3NT with clubs stopped.

Yes, there's another argument for 3 -- it leaves all other strains open:

Hoi-Ming Chan: 3. Allows partner to bid 3 or 3NT, without misleading partner about having 4 hearts or a club stop.

Robert Black: 3. Hoping to hear 3 from partner.

Denis Haynes: 3. Allows partner room to bid hearts or spades at the three level or NT if they hold clubs stoppers.

John Furedy: 3. Forcing for one round, and allowing 3-level bids; if bid 4, I'll bid 4.

Allowing 3-level bids, yes; forcing, definitely not.

Tony Treloar: 3. Another toughie. Can't rebid spades so best to deny 4 hearts. Partner might just have a good club stopper but was investigating the heart fit.

Peter Oakley: 3. best of a bad lot - two honours here if partner fancies trying 3NT.

Tim Francis-Wright: 3. If partner is being nice to me, she will bid 3NT now.

Alvin P. Bluthman: 3. Impossible problem. Now my goal is to give partner the room to rebid in a second suit if he has one.

Goran Hestner: 3. 14 good points, id show my values diamond even if its only 3 card, hoping that partner has say AJx and four hearts and can bid 3 NT -- if not he has the chance to pass with 4 card diamonds, or bid 3 hearts with 4(+) good hearts, or even invitational 3 spade with Hx.

Roger Yandle: 3. Looks like our best chance for game is 3NT. Hopefully pard can bid it once he knows I've got diamonds covered.

David Hester: 3. Again I have to hope that diamonds are a guy's best friend. There ought to be a provision for cases when you have to bid and have no bid to make; could we allow a bid of 'help'?

When I used to run novelty games for youth players, we allowed a special bid, "Å". The rules: "Å" keeps the bidding open for one more round without affecting the final contract, but it costs your side 10 points off the contract score (regardless of who ends up declaring or whether the contract makes).

The concept hasn't really caught on in mainstream bridge yet, but there is an equally imaginative option: a stunning 5% of the readers chose to double! (Names withheld to protect the guilty). Technically, given that partner has already doubled, I would have thought redouble was a better choice.

Barbara Hunter: 3. Temporise with 3, maybe partner can bid 3NT or go back to spades.

Leigh Matheson: 3. I don't have a club stack, I don't have 4 hearts, I don't have 6 spades, I don't have a club stopper. I don't have any other bid.

Speaking of a club stack, not everyone felt that a stack was necessary. Many of the bidders did give some thought to passing...

Bastiaan Korner: 3. maybe pass is better; but who knows?

Damo Nair: 3. Passing just doesn't feel right. I'm not bidding 3, may be 3 is a better bid.

... although the vulnerability was intimidating for some:

Zbych Bednarek: 3. At MP +100 in 3x would be worse than any 3-level partscore.

Paul Freeland: 3. Concerned that 3x may make, and even if only 1 light then if we can make 3// we will be better off.

Ron Landgraff: 3. I am sorely tempted to pass but I fear they may be only down one (if that!) and we have a reasonable shot at 140 in spades or hearts. Preempts work!

It takes a lot of courage to pass a takeout double with a doubleton in a bidding forum, so I wish we could have given more points to this lot :

Paul Gipson: Pass. Going for the magic +300 or something ending in -70.

Jameson Cole: Pass. If partner has full values for his negative double (at the 3 level), it should be a slaughter.

Ron Nelken: Pass. It is matchpoints. Let's try to take 5 tricks instead of 9.

David Davies: Pass. My feeling is that partner is likely to be quite balanced; it may be difficult to find a making partscore.

Fred Altstock: Pass. No where to go. Lets get penalty points.

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Perhaps our only chance of a plus score.

Eric Leong: Pass. The clearest shot for a good plus source is to go after the opponents with a meat axe.

Emil Battista: Pass. The most likely way to a plus score. Or a minus 470

Pass was the winner on the actual deal, and it was also the majority choice when this problem was first posed in 1999. The full deal:

A8  J7542  KT73  J4  652  KQ8  5  KQ10976  Q104 103   J9862  A83 KJ973 A96  AQ4  52

The simplest problem of the month, with only three options and a guaranteed award of at least 80 points. Let's start with the bidders, and find out why they chose to insist on diamonds over the more flexible double.

Peter Oakley: 3. Unlikely to be doubled in 3, and this is the best suit for partner to lead if opponents go on. Don't fancy my Double being left in without partner leading a diamond.

Manuel Paulo: 3. Partner can't have a good hand with a five card major suit; so, I don't double. But I must protect; so, I introduce my nice diamonds.

Sam Arber: 3. Partner has not bid a major unlikely to have 5 card reasonable one, if he has he may now bid it over your 3.

Goran Hestner: 3. Partner might be hoping for a double, but I only have 11 points. If partner has a good hand 3NT should make for 400, even if we could have had 500 in 3. With no 4 card major and so many points in diamonds, 3 is best.

Lindsay Coker: 3. Double will get a major from North; yuk.

Jameson Cole: 3. Maybe the opps won't find the heart switch.

Amiram Millet: 3. Very close to start with a double.

Ron Landgraff: 3. I think Double would be highly speculative. 3 gives us a chance for a plus and who knows partner could have a perfecta for Diamonds (he didn't double).

Alvin P. Bluthman: 3. If I pass, how is partner to find the right lead?

Interesting comment; he's actually even less likely to find the right lead if he is dummy.

John Furedy: 3. this looks to be both the best bid and also is a good lead director. And it retains 3NT for p.

Alan Jones: 3. This should make it easier for partner to bid 3NT with appropriate values.

Boris Richter: 3. Too good for those diamonds to just sit quietly in the pass out seat, maybe partner can even envision a NT game.

Eric Leong: 3. I don't mind partner stretching to bid 3NT with my good diamond suit.

Emil Battista: 3. Would not relish thought of hearing 3 or 4 over double.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Double could work better but is likely to get us to an major game.

This is the first of two balancing problems this month. As regular readers of this column will know, the requirements for a 4th seat "overcall" are much lower than a direct overcall.

Roger Yandle: 3. Balancing - I'd need another king to bid this in first seat. Pard could have as little as Axx Axx xxx Kxx and 3NT is a good bet.

Larry brose: 3. Partner probably has 10-11 points

Robert Black: 3. Somebody has some points. Maybe partner.

Damo Nair: 3. What's the catch? Pass and watch them go down 2?

Tony Treloar: 3. Partner has something and would likely overcall with a good 5 card major, so I don't think we are missing a major game. Can't sell out to the pre-empt.

Tim Francis-Wright: 3. Pass could be right, but the vulnerability is right to try to steal the partscore bonus.

David Hester: Pass. I am not a seal. If I balance on this, I will need protection myself but deserve extermination.

Hoi-Ming Chan: Pass. The hand is just a tad too weak to balance.

Ron Lel: Dbl. This is very close. In second seat this is a clear cut pass. In 4th seat I double.

There were a few people (names withheld) who wanted to double, but chose 3D because they thought double would show a better hand. I think this is a flawed argument; if you are strong enough to act, then you are strong enough to make sure you get to the right spot. If you think you are a king short on values, isn't it even more important that you describe your hand accurately and play in the right denomination?

Leigh Matheson: Dbl. Tough decision. If we play in a 4-3 fit, trumps will break badly, so we really must describe the shape right. After double partner can choose to bid game with a 5-card major. If I bid 3 however, partner will responds 3M and then I'm stuck.

Dean Pokorny: Dbl. Protective, hoping partner has clubs to penalise. 2nd choice - pass. 3 would be bad bridge.

Paul Freeland: Dbl. Must protect, and have tolerance for all the unbid suits.

Fraser Rew: Dbl. Not even close.

John R. Mayne: Dbl. This is an opportunity to play in a 4-3, so that's better than the problems so far. The upside of double is a successful penalty pass; in my native country, people preempt rather less excitingly than they do in Aussieland. Assuming West is an Aussie or me, there's a chance that sitting the double will be profitable.

John's native country is the United States of America, which coincidentally is where problems 4 and 5 came from (where EW preempted at the 4-level). By comparison, this gentle Aussie 3-level opening is quite tame (although to be fair, I have seen Aussies open 3 on a five-card suit -- but you can blame the British for that, specifically Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal in Partnership Bidding At Bridge).

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Gives partner the option of both majors or penalty pass.

Paul Gipson: Dbl. Our flexible friend. Hands with shortage should act, and with 3-card support in both majors I am not afraid to compete.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Dbl. Need to protect. Double has the largest upside.

Lastly, the passers; they have been "demoted" below the doublers, because the majority of the panel chose to take action.

Frank Campbell: Pass. 3 is the only other possible action but with 8 losers I can't see much upside in it.

Paul Tranmer: Pass. As p would strain to bid directly over the pre-empt I am very happy to pass here. My hand offers some good defence and I'd rather take plus 100 than minus 300!

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron wants just slightly more overall strength, or a somewhat stronger suit, to balance. K76 J63 AKJT3 63 would work, as would J76 763 AKQJ9 63. But the given hand is just a little too weak, and it doesn't quite have the suit quality in diamonds. Bridge Baron certainly would overcall with AKJT3 in preference to doubling here, unless it held a significantly stronger hand.

Duncan Roe: Pass. Can't see any other sensible bid.

Niek Van Vucht: Pass. Even at favourable vulnerability, it doesn't look good enought to bid with.

Terry Dunne: Pass. I have nowhere near enough strength/shape to bid at this level.

Richard Morse: Pass. My experience of this sort of hand is that bidding almost invariably leads to disappointment because the opponents wake up or because partner gets over-excited.

Tim Trahair: Pass. North is not willing to bid and probably has a balanced hand and a few HCP. 3 is another possibility but could well fail. Hope to set 3.

David Davies: Pass. Not quite enough for action even with the good diamond suit. If partner has some values we may get them off.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Table presence could be helpful here.

ken berry: Pass. there exists a chance that this will get 200 score, where I see only minus lots of 50 elsewhere.

Barbara Hunter: Pass. Why should I struggle in 3 we might take them down .

Fred Altstock: Pass. Something wrong here... who has the points !!!!

I think your partner has them. Unfortunately I don't have the full details of the deal at this time; as usual, if anyone recognises it, please send it in.

Our fourth problem is not so much a bidding problem as a springboard for system discussion. While 73% of readers agreed with the double, there was virtually no agreement on exactly what that double meant.

David Hester: Dbl. At this level, it should have a penalty flavour.

Michael Davy: Dbl. Penalty.

Alvin P. Bluthman: Dbl. Assuming it to be for penalties. No obvious fit, but probably 5-6 defensive tricks.

Bill Bennett: Dbl. 4 surely cannot make whilst 5 is at best doubtful.

Niek Van Vucht: 5. AB standard limits responsive doubles to 4, so bid naturally?

This last comment could be a cultural difference; a responsive double is defined as an immediate double of an opponent's raise after partner has made a takeout double. If we double in this auction, that would be a negative double. Either way, NOT a penalty double.  

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Lets get some penalty points. Not sure if we can get 5 home ?

Peter Oakley: Dbl. I'm on lead with diamonds doubleton, 3 aces and a likely ruff - and that's without a black-suit trick with partner!

Emil Battista: Dbl. The most likely way to a plus score. Or a minus 590.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Maybe we could have made 4NT or a slam. Nevertheless, I try for "the best result possible; not the best possible result" (S.J.Simon).

David Davies: Dbl. The vulnerability suggests not defending but it is easy to see things going wrong when declaring. I'll take the money; if partner does take it out I'll have more confidence in his values.

AB Standard (and almost everyone else) plays negative doubles to 4. In common use, the term negative double is basically defined as takeout. However, players have a tendency to massage the definition a little as the need arises:

Tony Treloar: Dbl. Showing good defensive values. If partner has a long diamond suit then he can still bid. Unfortunately 5 might be the best game but it is off the menu now unless partner has a freaky minor 2 suiter. I bid 6 over 5.

Boris Richter: Dbl. Partner can leave the double without four spades or bid game, waiting for a reopening double is risky since we might even make 4 on a Moysian fit, with a hand so rich in quick tricks it might work, and if partner does not reopen as it can happen it will be a complete disaster.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. Looks the most likely plus, North should have some defense or get the message I have values.

Kay O'Connor: Dbl. On the principle that if I don't show some strength now it may be too late

Eric Leong: Dbl. Double shows cards not a trump stack.

Henri de Jong: Dbl. Cards, we need to hear more from pard.

"Cards" is not an unreasonable description -- the higher the level, the greater the need to use a takeout double on hands with imperfect shape. As a result, partner is allowed to use some judgement in deciding to leave the double in (just like all the passers on Problem Two). Nevertheless, it's still a takeout double.

Paul Tranmer: Dbl. A no-brainer, frankly. Unless partner is wildly distributional he will pass and we'll take the money. Should partner bid on I'll be well placed to co-operate.

Tim Francis-Wright: Dbl. The good news is that we have a game on. The bad news is that it might be in our 3-3 fit.

Barbara Hunter: Dbl. Partner will know I've got a good hand and not many diamonds, so over to him.

John Furedy: Dbl. Allows for a 4 contract by partner.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: Dbl. Doesn't seem to be any other option.

Leigh Matheson: Dbl. I don't have a suit I'm willing to bid at this level.

Richard Morse: Dbl. Not good enough for 5, not enough diamonds to commit to diamonds. This isn't perfect but it seems least of evils.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. Pass seems a bit namby pamby.

Ken Berry: Dbl. this is a hopeful bid, hopeful that partner knows what to do

John R. Mayne: Dbl. This seems obvious. Partner will do the right thing before I raise him too high.

Robert Black: Dbl. Trusting partner to do the right thing- whatever that may be.

Ron Lel: Dbl. Seriously what else can you do here. I think the problem will come on the next round if there is one.

Which brings us to the real point of this problem. What do we do after partner pulls the double?

Fraser Rew: Dbl. I wish that pulling 4 to 4NT was takeout but I can't convince myself that it is. Nonetheless, I must act and this is the least of evils.

Rainer Herrmann: Dbl. If partner bids 4 I will bid 5.

Hoi-Ming Chan: Dbl. I'll worry about what to do later if partner bids 4.

Paul Freeland: Dbl. It seems highly unlikely that partner can convert this to penalties but you never know!! Over 4 I will pass, but over 5 will bid 6, and over 4NT or 5 bid 6.

Sam Arber: Dbl. Partner could be 4144 or more likely 54 or 63 in minors. Would raise 5 to 6 over 4 and 5. Still thinking about bidding on.

Paul Gipson: Dbl. Staying fixed. If partner bids then I will get interested in higher things.

Valter Johansson: Pass. I Don't want p bidding 4 after a double

For those who really couldn't bring themselves to distort a takeout double this far, there were not many possible alternatives:

Bridge Baron: Pass. Handcuffed by system. Bridge Baron figures, after simulating 20 deals, that a penalty double of 4 would be worth +396, as opposed to +106.5 for passing... but a double here would be negative in AB Standard. Maybe partner can reopen.

Dean Pokorny: Pass. If partner has a balancing double (short hearts), I'll blast 6. If he doesn't have it, I'm very happy to defend 4.  

Jameson Cole: 5. This is the only bid that shows my strength.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. Could double and lead diamond seven, however we are vul at IMPs and I feel we could make five clubs.

Erin Tewes: 5. Don't have four spades for double and partner can still rebid diamonds if he likes.

Kajsa Larson: 5. If p now bids 5, I will bid 6.

Terry Dunne: 5. My hand is strong enough and clubs are what I have. While partner might be 5-0-6-2, it's more likely that he is 4-1-4-4 or 4-0-5-4 and will bid spades if I double.

Joe O'flynn: 5. Pass or correct

Damo Nair: Dbl. 5 is too unilateral. What is 4NT in this situation?

Without explicit discussion, I would have assumed 5 was to play, and 4NT was pick-a-minor. However, all but one of the 4NT bidders intended 4NT as natural, including the sole advocate on the expert panel.

Frank Stewart: 4NT. The system notes say that we – questionably, in my opinion – use negative doubles to four hearts. Therefore, I hope North will treat 4NT as natural. I hate to let the opponents push us around, but we may have a slam.

Ron Landgraff: 4NT. Double will get us a plus but not a very big plus. If partner pulls to a minor, I'll sit for 5 Diamonds, and bid 6 Clubs over 5 Clubs.

Tim Trahair: 4NT. Ace asking. North presumably has few hearts but together we have 27 or more HCP. East is bluffing and trying to prevent us finding a vul game or slam. Finding the slam will be difficult!

Denis Haynes: 4NT. I hope partner understands that this is not asking for aces!

Roger Yandle: 4NT. Dbl would be negative according to AB Standard so I'm bidding a natural 4NT. Hopefully pard will see it that way also.

Amiram Millet: 4NT. Very close to 5NT = Pick a slam.

Duncan Roe: 4NT. Worth a play, as long as North's diamonds are good.

This problem is from Frank Vine's new book North of the Master Solver's Club. Frank recommends that South should bid 5. He writes: "When the opponent draws his gun it is suicide to run or hide. You have to draw your own gun and shoot it out. In bridge, there is no other way to survive."

On the actual deal, North held 3 8 AKQ10986 K976.
South bid 4NT, intending to play there. North corrected to 5 and South passed, concerned that North might think he was in a Blackwood auction. At the other table they made 7, after a less aggressive (some would say less Australian) intervention from EW.

Ron Landgraff: Pass. Why is this problem here? I have at most 8 HCP. Partner is limited to roughly 15 or less! And we are red! If it is a fix, it's a fix!

Ron is fairly new to this column, and doesn't yet realise that I throw in a balancing problem every six months or so, and Pass has never received the top score. We went as low as a 4-count last year, and still the panel voted for a bid in passout seat at the 4-level.

Nevertheless, the readers are still bailing out as fast as they can.

Ron Lel: Pass. Yes, yes, 6-5 "come alive" but that is going a bit far. It looks quite likely that partner has a penalty pass of a double. I don't want to defend with this load of trash. 4 and 4NT are far too unilateral.

Eric Leong: Pass. I don't like to enter random lotteries. It could be very right to bid or very WRONG.

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. I have nice distribution, but a bit too dangerous to bid here.

Robert Black: Pass. He's got me! I would like to know West's track record. Perhaps partner has the rest of the hearts, and the points, but I have neither.

Roger Yandle: Pass. I'm feeling pessimistic about this deal. If I dbl (for takeout) pard will no doubt leave it in, if I bid spades she'll have clubs and if I bid clubs she'll have spades. So I'm passing and hoping we'll take them down.

Paul Tranmer: Pass. Need to know more about EW's methods here, in particular do they use 4 as a "good" 4 opener? Without that knowledge, I'm going to pass and hope to beat it. Wild distribution abounds here so discretion will prove the better part of valour, I believe.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. No bullets, no battle. Pass is the hardest word in bridge.

Alvin P. Bluthman: Pass. Partner could be sitting over the preemptor with hearts, or even diamonds. He knows not to lead a spade, because I would have bid the suit with strength as well as length there.

Denis Haynes: Pass. Partner has no 5 card suit, and may have all the other hearts!

Dean Pokorny: Pass. Too weak and off-shape for a protective double.

The biggest argument in favour of the pass is the vulnerability, with -200 or worse placing us at risk of an outright bottom. 

Alan Jones: Pass. At unfavourable vulnerability, there is too great a risk of losing 500+ to avoid giving up 420.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I don't see how I can act with 8 points at this vulnerability.

Bill Bennett: Pass. 4 probably makes, but any bid from me is likely to lose more if doubled.

Valter Johansson: Pass. could be right to bid but wrong zones

Michael Burt: Pass. Great distribution but 8 points, vulnerable and bidding at the 4/5 level. I am not brave enough.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Have to pay the pre-empt. Sure the hand has possibilities but one of those is -1400.

Richard Morse: Pass. Wrong vulnerability and too great a risk of a big penalty even with my pleasing shape.

Peter Oakley: Pass. Partner has points, yes, but I'm not sticking my neck out vul, right or wrong.

Tim Trahair: Pass. Perhaps we can set 4s as N may have 4 of them. 5 could be a worthwhile save but is pretty risky as we are vul.

Goran Hestner: Pass. Tricky - West likely short spades. I have no aces what so ever so double feels like giving wrong info to partner. 4 hoping for the best might be very expensive.

Rounding out his most generous set of scores ever, Phil has awarded 90 points to the pass, a strange decision when 75% of the panel chose to act. For those who choose to not have the opponents walk all over you, we have several options. Let's start with bidding to our most likely contract:

Manuel Paulo: 4. This is a very dangerous bid! At IMPs I would pass, but Matchpoints is another game.

David Davies: 4. 5 is less likely to get mauled but at matchpoints that is less of an issue. There is a good chance of finding partner with reasonable spades.

Hoi-Ming Chan: 4. Could easily be the last making place.

Joe O'flynn: 4. I think it is our hand

Pontus Silow: 4. It is unlikely that letting EW play in 4 will give us a good board. There are no guaranteed ways of getting a better board, but I just can't keep from trying.

Fred Altstock: 4. Lets chance 4. Partner may have some good spades which we need.

Boris Richter: 4. Risky business I guess but it might work.

Sam Arber: 4. Tempted to pass but only 6 loser hand.

Tim Francis-Wright: 4. What a headache. 4 could easily be making, in which case we want to sacrifice. And if it isn't making, we rate to have a game. 4 rates to be better, on average, than 5, but only by a little bit. At IMPs, I would be tempted to bid 5 because the suit is better and the chance for a huge loss would be lessened.

One big advantage of 4 is that it gives us two chances to reach a good spot:

Rainer Herrmann: 4. Risky, but so is any other action including pass. If 4 gets doubled I will run to 5.

Paul Freeland, Ingerun Sjosvard: 4. And if doubled will run to 5.

Amiram Millet: 4. Might show clubs later.

Malcolm Ewashkiw: 4. This is like one of those shell games - opt for spades and clubs is right; opt for clubs and spades is right.

John R. Mayne: 4. Yeah, yeah. Wrong suit, too weak, don't care. 4 is a transfer, and I accept it with a void.

Joe Lentz: 4. "When in doubt, bid four spades over four hearts", a maxim from Larry Cohen's To Bid or Not to Bid.

Those last two comments were echoed by one of the expert panelists, if not by the man himself:

Steve and Barbara Shepard: 4. Doesn't Larry Cohen play 4 opening bids by the opponents as transfers to 4 by us? We'll go with that.

Larry Cohen: Dbl. I love to bid 4 over 4, but this is just a bit too extreme for me. I like to reopen with shortness – also a bit extreme with this hand, but partner could have them killed and I love to make partner happy. However, he won't be so happy with dummy if he bids 5!

The double was also supported by Ron Klinger, Michael Ware, and a smattering of readers:

Damo Nair: Dbl. I'm not sitting for this, I'm no girly man! 4 is a bit scary.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Hoping that N made a trap pass (with maybe 4 of the 5 H that W doesn't have)

Fraser Rew: Dbl. I hate it. But doubling here seems to work for everyone else so I'll give it a go. Otherwise I end up in 6, or off in 4 with 6 cold.

Jameson Cole: Dbl. I should be able to take a couple of tricks. Now if partner does his share, we got him. If he takes it out to 4, even better.

Terry Dunne: Dbl. Yes, I would like more HCP, but surely I have to bid with this shape. At least dbl allows us to play in 4. The alternative, 4NT, could also get us to spades but one level too high.

We'll finish up with the minority choices, all of which stand an excellent chance of being winners at the table:

John Furedy: 5. I assume Michaels can be used at this level. Preferable to 4 bid which is a poor lead director if opps go to 5. 5NT by partner would ask for my minor, and in that case 6 would be a reasonable spot.

Kay O'Connor: 4NT. Relying on the fact partner is an expert and either now or in subsequent bidding will figure out that I have a two suiter.

Emil Battista: 5. 4NT or 5 is too red blooded even for an aggressive bidder

Barbara Hunter: 5. This may not be a good idea seems hard to get a good score here.

Leigh Matheson: 5. Matchpoints or not, you must bid what you've got. And on this hand you've got a chunky, long club suit. By my calculations an 8+ card club fit is an 81% chance, whereas an 8+ card spade fit is a mere 32% chance.

This problem is also from Frank Vine's book, and again he recommends a strong action. At the table he passed, believing that the rest of the field would not bid with only 8 points. He found his partner with AQ Q963 AQ875 97.

As with Problem Four, the rest of the field did not have to cope with an Aussie-style opening. Most Wests opened 1, allowing North-South an easy auction to one of their three available games.
 

Thanks again to the readers and the experts for all your interesting comments and for your continued support of this forum, one of the cornerstones of our magazine (which will be arriving in your homes this week by the way).