Welcome to our 4th forum for 2010. We have a nice simple set of problems for you this one, with only one of the problems producing more than 12 different answers. We'll begin with the simplest problem, where all our options are confined to the 2-level:

Leigh Matheson: 2. And pass next. Be prepared to rescue partner once, but not twice.

Martyn Rew: 2. Anything else, partner?

Paul Freeland, Julie Guthrie, Joe O'Flynn: 2. Looking for a better fit.

Mark Guthrie: 2. Partner has pulled my penalty double, I doubt I can make anything much now, let’s walk it and see if we can find a better spot.

Damo Nair: 2. Let North find some other suit if he doesn't like diamonds.

Alex Kemeny: 2. Seems sensible to find a 4-3 fit at the 2 level. Partner should now pass with three diamonds or bid a 3-card major. OK, so when he has 7222 we will end up in 3.

Bridge Baron: 2. Bridge Baron simulates disaster in 2, expecting to score -420 on average. Of the other three suits, hearts are the strongest, outscoring diamonds and spades narrowly in simulations, so 2 it is.

Emil Battista: 2. I almost have 4. 2NT unlikely to play well.

Michael Davy: 2. He can still run to 3 without too much damage.

Having played Forcing Pass for much of my life (the system with a frequently doubled 1 fert), I fully agree with Michael's philosophy that finding the right suit is worth the risk, even if you might end up back in the same suit a level higher. But I don't think this is the time for that approach. Firstly, we haven't been doubled yet, and a double could well improve our position:

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Hope for SOS redouble opportunity.

Sam Arber: Pass. May not find a better spot, but will redouble if we get doubled.

Pär Ol-Mårs: Pass. Partner is weak with at least five clubs. Bidding now may get us to even sillier contract. If doubled I will however redouble and hope for the best, when I can get all my suits in the picture.

Although Michael Smart raises an argument against the SOS approach:

Michael Smart: 2. Doesn't show extras (2NT would). Passing then rescuing 2X tells them to hit you.

There is another argument against running: partner will often have a real club suit here:

Richard Morse: Pass. I assume 2 shows a weak hand with long clubs. Anything else is undisciplined, particularly at this vulnerability.

Toby Weinstein: Pass. I expect six clubs.

Christer Enkvist: Pass. Partner only pulls with a horrible hand -- only thing left is to pray for long clubs.

Dan Baker: Pass. I figure partner for a long weakish club suit and nothing else (he'd sit the double with real values). 6-1 fits are usually less painful than 4-3 (to say nothing of 4-2), and NT is silly leading out of my hand all day.

Paul Gipson: Pass. Partner would pass with any balanced hand and any suit bid would finish the auction. Let's settle in the known 6+ card fit. A penalty double of the strong notrump is useful against Zia but few others.

Our best scorer for 2010 makes a good point about balanced hands. For further reading on this topic, see Simon Hinge's VCC article in the current issue of the magazine.

So, assuming partner does have five clubs, do we really want to be anywhere else?

Pontus Silow: Pass. No other strain is a certain -- or even likely -- improvement.

Roger Yandle: Pass. presumably pard would pass with some values so this looks like a weak hand. It might not be the best spot but anything from me now is more likely to make things worse than better.

Michael Burt: Pass. Partner can't have much otherwise 1NTx would have been left in. Trust partner. A 5-1 club fit may be the best place to be (or a better place than if I keep bidding).

Jacco Hop: Pass. Partner doesn’t pull my penalty doubles for fun. Bidding on usually creates a bigger mess. If partner's trumps are long 2 will play well since all our honours are well placed.

Joe Lentz: Pass. Partner may be able to scramble for 8 tricks keeping the notrump bidder on lead.

Alan Jones: Pass. This contract is our only chance to take any finesses through East. In any other contract the North hand will be dead.

Ingerun Sjösvärd: Pass. I hate my partner.

Bastiaan Korner: Pass. Partner does not have a good hand.

Jack Lai: Pass. If partner have a little bit HCP, he should nave passed already.

Not everyone is happy with our previous bidding. I have to admit that in my own bridge career I have never doubled an opening 1NT and had a happy ending; the opponents always run to a better spot, assuming my own partner doesn't rescue them first. But aren't we supposed to double when we have the strongest hand at the table?

Jameson Cole: 2. I would have led my A against 1NT, expecting to set them two or more.

Zbych Bednarek: 2. You couldn't find a green card in your bidding box? You can call me Chicken, but I would pass over 1NT from RHO.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. After my previous call, I must assume our fate.

Ron Lel: Pass. I hope this was a double of a weak NT, because I certainly don't have a penalty double of a strong NT. Well, I made my bed and now will lie in it.

Frank Campbell: 2. Why did I double? Not playing in 2 and the expected spade or diamond lead should help.

Duncan Roe: 2. Serves me right for doubling - I should have kept quiet. He can't have many points if East has his bid. 2 rates to be shocking.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Not sure that doubling 1NT was such a clever idea.

Robert Black: Pass. Was I too strong to bid 2 last time, which is our system for both majors? Partner should be weak and long, so 2NT would fail when 2 makes.

Tony Treloar: Pass. I can't remember doubling their 1NT so I don't know why I am in this mess now. Stand the 2 until the opps X and then XX which hopefully tells partner to try another suit. Would rather be defending 1NT!!!!!!

It's not uncommon for some people to disagree with our bidding forum auctions, although such complaints are often unfounded -- everybody has a different style and it's perfectly normal for one hand to be bid in many different ways. But on this occasion I'm lending my support to the dissenters; maybe it's time for all of us to take the strong NT penalty double out of our methods. 

Another low-level problem where our partner has forced us into an auction we didn't really want to be involved in. The top reader vote went to the cuebid, attempting to show our ace and two kings:

Michael Burt: 2. 11 points plus two tens but terrible distribution. 3NT may be a reasonable chance if partner has a diamond stopper and more than a minimum. Hopefully partner will interpret my bid as asking for a diamond stopper.

Joe Lentz: 2. As a passed hand I can cue first planning to bid 3 over partner's major-suit bid or to pass partner's 2NT.

Toby Weinstein: 2. I know it is a slight overbid but I do not like the alternatives.

Alexander Cook: 2. I will pass partner's response, whether it be 2, 2, 2NT or 3.

Tony Treloar: 2. Is this the best lie? Ok, should be a point or two stronger, but I think it is the bid which is most likely to get us to the right spot.

Richard Morse: 2. Maximum pass, reasonable support for anything partner has.

Margaret Reid, Tania Black: 2. Name your suit, partner.

Sam Arber: 2. Nowhere to really go bid 2 to show good hand.

Robert Black: 2. Partner can bid his best suit at the 2 or 3 level, justified by my 11 HCPs.

Alex Kemeny: 2. Show my strength and let partner pick a suit.

Ron Lel: 2. Shows this hand type - reasonable values but no real bid to make.

Paul Freeland: 2. Some sort of unassuming cue. Will probably pass a non-jump rebid by partner.

Julie Guthrie: 2. Strong enough to describe my hand. No 4 card major. No diamond stopper. He can bid No trump if he has a stopper, any other bid, I will pass.

Jacco Hop: 2. This will get us to game when we belong there and get us to 2M for a nice matchpoint score if partner doesn’t have anything special.

Joe O'Flynn: 2. We might have game. I think partner has opening strength.

Damo Nair: 2. What else? We can play any contract North picks. If North jumps then maybe game is on.

Bastiaan Korner: 2. Feels better than 3.

At the other extreme, there was a lot of support for taking the low road, despite the 11-count:

Leigh Matheson: 1. Gotta bid the spades, preferably before they do. Bid 2 at IMPs.

Christer Enkvist: 1. The best chance for a game is when partner has a 15-17 NT (can have this when balancing as 1NT then is weak) so only to sit back and wait for 1NT.

Tim Trahair: 2. If North has better than opening values game might be on. So 2 temporises to see if North is able to go further. If he can manage 2 then we can bid 2 looking for NT if North has a diamond cover.

Martyn Rew: 2. Least likely to give partner the chance to misinterpret.

Dan Baker: 2. Opposite a balance, this is just barely short of a jump thanks to the square distribution. Lying about my distribution (especially when balancing doubles, in my experience, tend to be offshape more often) or showing a stopper I don't have is a good way to get in trouble if things get frisky from here.

Zbych Bednarek: 2. Show your hand.

Fred Altstock: 2. Showing 10+ pts although not having five clubs but a couple of good ones then partner can bid NT if has diamond stopper.

This is a common error: 2 does not in fact show 10+ points here. It may be a two-level response, but it is a minimum response to a double which forced us to bid our best suit. This would be the correct bid on ZERO points. That's not to say we can't have some values for the bid, but we are certainly not promising anything.

Duncan Roe: 2. Partner made a take-out double, so I bid my best suit. Can I show him my pass was near maximum? I don't think so with this shapeless hand.

Rainer Herrmann: 2. This problem looks to me more a matter of good agreements than judgment. Is balancer supposed to double first with 15-16 and then bid 2NT over a non-jump response or are you supposed to invite with a jump if you want to play 3NT opposite that strength, so that a 2NT rebid by balancer over a non jump response would show 17-18? Since I seem to have no agreements I will assume that balancer will bid again if he was too strong for a 1NT overcall.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. Too weak for 2.

Bridge Baron: 2. With a "weak" hand after the balancing double (less than 13 total points), Bridge Baron makes the book bid of the longest unbid suit at the cheapest level. It won't bid 1NT without a full diamond stopper.

Jameson Cole: 2. I just lost a King and I'm 4333. 2 is right on values.

Regular readers will not need an explanation of Jameson's comment, but for the uninitiated: when responding to a balancing double, you should assume that partner has already bid part of your hand. Standard practice is to act as if partner has borrowed one of your kings, and bid accordingly -- so this hand is actually an 8-count, not an 11-count. In a similar vein:

JC Clement: 2. In French system, if North has a real opening, he has to bid once more after his double.

Pär Ol-Mårs: 2. A bit strong for this but can’t bid 3 with only four cards. Partner was in balancing position and should be able to bid again if we have a game.

Roger Yandle: 3. pard has doubled in the pass-out seat so might not have full values. Because of that it looks like 2 would be an overbid. I'd like to have five clubs for this bid but can't always have the right cards.

Having heard from both of the extremes, it's not surprising to learn that the top score goes to the middle-ground:

Manuel Paulo: 1NT. Matchpoints.

Pontus Silow: 1NT. I do think that this is the most accurate/descriptive bid, even if T74 is not the best stopper. In a 4-card opening context this would be riskier.

Larissa Cowlishaw: 1NT. No 4+ card major to bid at the one level, and not a 5+ club suit.

Denis Haynes: 1NT. Showing a flat hand with no length in any suit and some points.

Michael Smart: 1NT. shows values. Happy to play 1NT without diamonds stopped, but expect partner to check back in diamonds if interested in 3NT.

Paul Gipson: 1NT. The lack of diamond bids suggest that this is safe enough as a part score that should score well at Matchpoints, though I'd do the same at imps.

Mark Guthrie: 1NT. Not ideal but 2NT would punish partner for re-opening light.

Jack Lai: 1NT. Partner's balancing double might not promise too much.

Unfortunately I don't have the full deal; once again my filing system has defeated me and I can't remember who gave me this problem. If anyone recognises it, please let me know and I'll publish the details.
 

Enough of these partscore problems, it's time to liven things up a bit. It's hard to know where to start with 12 different options, so we'll begin with the handful of readers (and one lone panellist) who found the winning action at the table:  

Michael Ware: 4. This is forcing (unlike 4) and hopefully allows partner to describe his hand further. First reaction was 5NT (GSF) to find out if partner has K, but just too much chance partner doesn't have five spades.

Bridge Baron: 4. Bridge Baron would bid 4 if it didn't have any other good bid -- but it considers rebidding its six-card minor a good bid.

JC Clement: 4. Forcing, looking for the best suit to be trumps.

Paul Gipson: 4. Let's hear what more partner has to say. The problem with 4 is that it could be natural and be raised, and 4 is non-forcing. Really tough problem, as is often the case after a 2 opener.

Joe Lentz: 4. We will get to slam but the strain is unclear. If partner rebids spades I will bid 5NT, choice of slams.

Christer Enkvist: 4. Since partner has denied a weak two in spades a spade slam will likely depend on the same things as 6. However, instead of ending the auction with 6 we may establish diamonds with the forcing bid of 4 to see if partner can cuebid spades.

Christer raises an interesting point about a 4 rebid from partner. Many would take 4 as natural (see Joe's comment above), but it makes a lot of sense for 4 to be a control bid for diamonds here. (Although I'm not clear on how partner denied a weak two in spades -- but the rest of the reasoning is sound).

Tony Treloar: 4. Tough problem. Does this set the suit? Here I would like 4 from pard to be natural. Other times I would like it to be a cue. Who knows? At least I will get another bid and another chance to show I am strong. If they bid 5 I bash 6.

Andrew McKee: 4. The 2 waiting bid tells me nothing. I use a points reply and have invented my own nonlinear scale. It works a treat.

Fred Altstock: 6. Go for the knockout punch and hope partner might have K!

Barbara Whitmee: 6. Trying 6 vulnerable at IMPs. Feel that my partner has king of spades. Could throw a heart off on a long spade. If partner does have five spades it may not be good playing in the spade contract because clubs need ruffing in my hand and it may be hard to get to the other hand to finish drawing trumps.

Denis Haynes: 6. Partner has shown support for spades and diamonds and a suit contract is what is needed.

Partner hasn't necessarily shown support for diamonds here, but we do have a very good suit.

6 wasn't the only making slam, but the other one (6) was extremely hard to bid. Here are a few who thought they might be able to find the heart fit:

Dan Baker: 4. Ah, the big diamond hand. Bane of the Standard 2 existence (even if you play second negatives, 3 is ambiguous on strength, and follow-ups to that are unclear as to whether they're forcing). Does partner have KJxxx xxxx xx xx, which is a near-laydown 7? Or some ugly pile like Jxxx xxx xx KJxx in which any slam is a severe longshot at best? I'll probably toss down 6 or 6 at my next turn ... assuming I get one.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. Hope it is forcing.

Barbara Hunter: 4. Please tell me more partner have you got 5 , then we are slam bound.

Richard Morse: 4. Surely my hand has improved with the spade bid. I’m not sure if 4 is meant as a suit or a forcing bid with spades in mind. But I don't think partner can pass it.....

Damo Nair: 4. This has to be forcing right? What does 5 say? I don't know. After some bid by North I'll try 5 or 6 spades.

Not surprisingly, the majority pinned all their hopes on spades, with support for all levels of the suit. Game:

Larissa Cowlishaw: 4. 2 is less than 3 controls.

Roger Yandle: 4. With as little as KJxxx xxx xx xxx slam is a good bet. Hopefully if I show support pard will be able to move forward with the right hand (i.e. no wasted values in clubs).

Jameson Cole: 4. If partner has 5 spades, this will be our best chance of making 6 or 7. With only 5 spades, I expect him to be bidding a control, delaying support for diamonds. He might hold S KJxx H xxx D J1074 C Q4 in which case 6 is the limit.

Stephen Bartos: 4. partner already knows my suit is diamonds, so can make a choice - there is at least an eight card trump suit in spades, I don't know how many diamonds partner has (and if void, spades will work much better)

Duncan Roe: 4. Partner likely has 5 unless he's 4-3-3-3, but it should play OK anyway. Not inclined to go for slam after the 2 negative.

Margaret Reid: 4. Pd has something and hopefully five spades.

Mark Guthrie: 4. Who has all the clubs? We should make game if partner has a decent Yarborough so worth looking for something more but hopefully partner will push on if need be.

Slam:

Martyn Rew: 6. 4 as Gerber would be best, but under this sequence, it is more likely to be taken as a control bid (ok) or indicating shape (not ok). 4 would have natural follow through to 5 which is where the real interest would be.

Michael Burt: 6. If partner has five spades to the jack, 6 is quite a reasonable contract. There is no easy way of working this out. Even if North has the king of spades, 7 is a borderline bid at IMPs (roughly a 2/3rds chance of success). Just go straight to 6 and give as little information about North's hand as possible.

Emil Battista: 6. Played from the wrong side of course, but OK.

And some in the middle:

Tom Moss: 5. 5 is too ambiguous. Sounds like a minor 2 suiter. If it would be exclusion Blackwood, or void showing, I would like it.

Sam Arber: 5. Ask partner to bid slam with good spades, but may be cold for 7.

Joe O'Flynn: 5. Don’t need much for slam, but how do we find out?

Toby Weinstein: 5. I hope 3 promises five, too strong for 4.

Rainer Herrmann: 5. This invitation should ask about trump quality. Of course if 5 would be exclusion key card Blackwood...

Ron Lel: 5. To be honest, I really don't know. I would not have opened this hand with 2, strong as it is. Two suiters are notoriously hard to bid. We also need to have some agreements; can 3 be a 4 carder or is it a 5 carder? Would 4 be a cue now or natural? I guess 5 is a bit of a nothing bid; will partner know to bid 7 holding KJ to 5 and out? I don't think so.

A few optimists were willing to gamble on the meaning of a cuebid:

Robert Black: 4. Partner has something apart from 5 spades, so slam is possible. But does my bid sound like a second suit? Partner's next bid will tell!

Tim Trahair: 4. Setting spades as trumps and promising 1st or 2nd round control in clubs. If North bids 4 we may well be on track for slam in spades.

And a handful of people chose to ignore the club void and take the simple route:

Alex Kemeny: 4NT. 5 (Exclusion KCB) doesn't quite work because of concern over J. If he shows A & K, I want to be in 7NT. If he shows 0 or 1 key cards, I'll settle for 6. Side suit of AKQxxx almost always plays for 0 losers.

Ian Patterson: 4NT. Keycard.

Alexander Cook: 4NT. Partner needs very little for slam to make.

Bastiaan Korner: 4NT. With Kxxxx it is seven and with J10xxx it is six.

No doubt there will be some controversy about the two top scores going to artificial bids that are not documented in the system (both of which would have led to a minus score on the actual deal). In an attempt to mitigate this, I will upgrade the scores for all people who explicitly rejected these bids on system grounds. Namely:

Leigh Matheson: 4. An easy 5 bid if playing exclusion keycard.

Pravin Nahar: 4. How to find the K? 5NT Trump Ask (on the last bid suit) would be my choice with my regular partner.

Paul Freeland: 4NT. RKCB hopefully, would prefer 5 as voidwood.

Frank Campbell: 4NT. RKCB. Slam possible opposite as little as Kxxx. Would like to try 5 as EKCB if there was no chance of it coming unstuck.

Jacco Hop: 5. Exclusion Blackwood. I asked some Dutch juniors and we all agreed.

Ingerun Sjösvärd: 5. If pard has 5 spades to the king or 4 good spades and nothing more, we will probably make 6 or 7.

Zbych Bednarek: 5. Void in clubs, ask (small slam, maybe grand??)

Pär Ol-Mårs: 5. Voidwood. Will invite to grand with 5 NT if he has spade king.

Manuel Paulo: 5NT. As I see it, partner's rebid shows five or more cards; so, slam is likely. I want to know if he holds the king to bid the grand.

Michael Smart: 5NT. Not sure what responses by a 2 negative over a GSF ought to be, but I need to communicate that it's all about trump quality. KJ to 6 or K to 7 is enough.

Pontus Silow: 5NT. Pick a slam, since I expect 6// to have decent play. 5 (reasonably void) is an exciting alternative, but I do not know how to get partner excited with Kxxxx of spades and nothing else, so I give up on finding a grand.

South did consider bidding 5NT at the table, and she would have intended it as "pick-a-slam", while her partner would have interpreted it as a GSF trump ask. The expert panel was similarly divided:

Larry Cohen: 5NT. Sure, 7 could be laydown, but there is no intelligent way to reach it, so I will settle for a small slam (playing diamonds if partner picks them). It wouldn't shock me if someone else bids 5NT intending it as the GSF in spades!

Ron Klinger: 5NT. Trump ask. Prepared to be in 7 opposite Kxxxx. Partner might be better than that . . . or worse. 

Which goes to show that in life, as in AB Standard, players don't always know the exact meaning of every possible bid. The full deal:

J9853 Q1092 J4 J3 7 876 9732 AK1087 K1042 J3 10 Q96542 AQ6 AK54 AKQ865 ---

At the table South chose 5, Exclusion Blackwood, and played in 6 going two off. Playing in either red suit would have produced 13 tricks instead of 10. 

Next we have a preemptive problem, but for a change it's our own side that caused the preemption. A large part of the problem revolves around the meaning of partner's double; let's put the readers' answers on hold for a moment and see what the experts say about the double.

Tim Cope: Dbl. Given that a third in hand 4 opener can be various handtypes, their double of 5 should show outside defensive tricks (certainly not diamonds). 

Peter Fordham: Pass. As I understand it, the pre-emptor's double in situations such as this promises extra shape over and above what might be expected for their initial action. Thus, here, given the opponents' auction, I expect partner's extra shape to reside in extra trump(s) and/or club length/fragment.

Bob Jones: 5. Great problem. I think partner's double just shows the 'good' 4 opener. He was expecting to make that contract opposite a routine catch from my hand and that we likely have a plus score to protect. I may well have taken that plus score away by bidding. I hate myself. I don't even want to see his face when I put the dummy down. In fact, I'm going to let the kibitzer turn the dummy while I go bang my head against the wall.

Michael Ware: 5. Not sure about partner's double of 5, but it must show either Diamonds or a desire to bid again and in that context I have a great hand. KS must be gold.

Ron Klinger: 5. Presuming partner has some diamond values

To summarize: Klinger says diamond values, Jones and Fordham say a good 4 bid with extra shape, and Cope says random defensive cards but not diamonds. At the time of writing I haven't seen the full deal, so for a change I'm in the dark like everyone else; but for the record I thought the Bob Jones interpretation was the standard one (except for the head banging). Likewise:

Pär Ol-Mårs: 5. As he doubled he expected to make 4, so with this he should make 5. Could even be so that we make 6.

Rainer Herrmann: Dbl. North’s strength for his 4 preempt in this position can vary widely. Accordingly DBL should show a strong preempt with side suit values. It neither shows diamonds nor has Lightner implications.

Alan Jones: Dbl. And lead A followed by Q for partner to ruff.

Martyn Rew: Pass. 5 level is for the opponents. A double from partner is ok -- the opponents won't be getting a lot of discards by running diamonds, and there may even be a ruff for partner in diamonds.

Julie Guthrie: Pass. Lead a low diamond for a ruff from partner, then wait for my AQ to win 2 tricks.

Not surprisingly, the bulk of the nation is in the Klinger camp (every bridge player owns at least one Klinger book):

Sam Arber: 5. Good double fit with partner they have club heart fit.

Michael Smart: 5. Bidding to make. We have all the pointy cards and they have all the round ones.

Duncan Roe: 5. More as a sacrifice than expecting to make. E looks to have spade ace and a diamond void. With partner having a decent diamond holding for his penalty double, he can have little in the other two suits, so 5 could well be on.

Tony Treloar: 5. Partner rates to have only two cards outside of diamonds and spades and should have A and K to justify the auction to this point.

Andrew McKee: 5. Sacrificial. North looks to have diamonds covered, maybe a void? We will go down in the offsuits probably, but not vulnerable.

Jacco Hop: 5. 5 will probably have a good play. With xxx and xxx in their suits I have very bad memories of doubling them. If both go 1 off it is not such a big deal. Not bidding 5 is rather silly if partner has AQJTxxx - KJxx xx. or similar. I don’t see anything which makes me assume that double of 5 is not penalty. The question is if partner would double it with short diamonds and a good hand for 4, which is my regular style, AQJTxxxx Ax - Kxx or something. But since you need very specific agreements for that I think double is penalty and shows something in diamonds

Damo Nair: 5. I got 2 really big cards. If the double of 5 shows a decent diamond suit I have a 6 bid I think.

This is a good point. If partner really has diamonds, where are the 6 bidders? Larry Cohen and Phil Gue chose 6 (with Larry expressing concern that he will look foolish if North doesn't have diamonds). But, in what is probably a first for this forum, this bid received exactly zero votes from the readers. Although this one is close:

Jameson Cole: 5NT. Pick a slam, assuming partner has his bids.

Jameson, this bid was overlooked in the scoring. I will upgrade it to 80 points, it's at least as good as 6.

Alex Kemeny: 5. Should go for -300 at worst. Have to take insurance at teams.

Pontus Silow: 5. 5 is best if both 5 and 5 make - or if one of them makes. Otherwise, double is the attractive action. In this case, I do not expect the doubled penalty to exceed the value of 5/ that makes.

Dan Baker: 5. Are we playing with the same deck here? North preempted and doubled diamonds, and I have AQTxx? That bodes ill; East could easily be 3505 or wilder. 5 is cheap insurance; only question is whether it pushes them into a slam which (hopefully) is unmakeable.

Tim Trahair: 5. West's 5 presumably shows preference for diamonds over clubs, while East's 5 presumably shows long hearts and clubs. If we pass, EW may well make 5 as one of them will probably have a shortage in spades and they may have the other suits well covered. So 5 is intended as a save.

Mark Guthrie: 5. Wow, this one is a real mess! East wants to play in NT but West thinks it is take out for the minors. Partner must have a decent hand for the double and I've got at least 2 tricks.

Many of these comments suggest 5 is a sacrifice. But let's take a closer look at this auction. Our partner has put the opponents to a five-level guess, and then popped back into the auction voluntarily. Whatever the double means, one thing seems clear: partner believes we have a decent 3-figure score available on this deal. Otherwise he would leave the opponents to have the last guess. 

So how do you think he would feel if he knew his passed partner has two keycards? With that in mind, let's hear what the passers have to say for themselves:

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron is best described as "confused" on this auction. Maybe the opponents are confused too.

Frank Campbell: Pass. East apparently has a big 2 suiter in hearts and clubs for which I have little defense. I have no idea what North is doing so he can please himself what he does.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Hope to make 5 if partner has diamond fit.

Roger Yandle: Pass. It looks like E has got a 2 suited hand with hearts and clubs. Is pard's dbl lead directing or does it show some diamonds? Since I'm not sure I'll take the cowards way out and pass. I'm forever hopeful that we might even defeat 5.

Paul Gipson: Pass. King of spades. This is the lead problem? I don't seem to have any defence to slam so will not push them there.

Leigh Matheson: Pass. Partner is captain of this auction.

Denis Haynes: Pass. Partner is weak and long in spades leave the opposition to make 11 tricks on my K lead.

Paul Freeland: Pass. Strange auction, isn't 4 preemptive, and 4NT something like 2 places to play? Looks like East has hearts and clubs now, but what is the double? I think I'll let partner with goodness knows what, make the final decision on this one!

Of course, it's not my job to pass judgement on this cowardly call (Roger's adjective, not mine). I'm just here to report the facts. Tim Bourke and Sartaj Hans also passed, and my immense respect for them makes it even less likely that I will make any negative comments about this spineless choice.

Next, the doublers, who at least will ensure that partner gets the 3-figure score he expects (I just hope it's in the right column):

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Trivial, as the lead: the heart deuce.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Can't see us making 5 so let’s hope to get some positive points.

Michael Burt: Dbl. If north can double 5 without assistance from me, then we should be doubling 5.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Lead a diamond for Pd to ruff. I'll lead the ten, suit preference for spades.

Ron Lel: Dbl. Let’s work out what we know. East has a 2 suiter in clubs and hearts. West has little or no club tolerance, but has diamonds and hearts, so the opps have found a fit. Partner 4 bid in this seat, followed by her subsequent double shows a good hand. The opps might make this on a cross ruff, but if I lead a heart, I suspect they will finish a trick or so short. So, double it is, provided I lead a heart.

Richard Morse: Dbl. Partner must have a void in diamonds, which devalues my hand for spades but sets up an obvious defence.

Ingerun Sjösvärd: Dbl. Partner's double is somewhat confusing but at least I have a great lead in K. 

Toby Weinstein: Dbl. Sounds like east is 5-5 in Hearts and Clubs. Hope the double by North promises some defense.

Joe Lentz: Dbl. Too strong to pass. It's double or 5. Not sure what partner's double means.

Robert Black: Dbl. When we get to game first we double. It sometimes works. If East is void in diamonds we may revise the above rule, and call it just a guideline.

Paul has given me the full deal now, and I can reveal that the Klinger interpretation was the winner (which isn't a huge shock, as I now see that he was in the East seat):

AQJ8764 --- KJ643 J 1093 Q10753 987 94 52 AKJ84 --- AKQ876 K 962 AQ1052 10532

The deal is from the final of the ANOT. We can make a slam in either of our suits, but instead both tables (Terry Brown and Nabil Edgtton) chose to double 5, which could not be beaten. The entire auction was in fact identical at both tables, apart from the fact that Terry also doubled 4NT before doubling 5.

Well done to Jameson Cole, Larry Cohen and Phil Gue, the only people on either panel to get the maximum result on the board.

It's only been two months since we demonstrated conclusively that you should always pass with five cards in the opponents' suit. So here's a little something to tempt you away from the straight and narrow path.

Leigh Matheson: Pass. Partner will keep bidding with 16+ points.

Duncan Roe: Pass. East just bid my longest suit, so keep quiet. Partner doesn't actually have to have had especially good clubs to have bid them.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Partner will likely balance with shortage in diamonds.

Damo Nair: Pass. If North doubles I'll have to guess how many clubs North has.

Christer Enkvist: Pass. If partner doesn't find the take-out we're not making a contract

Jack Lai, Roger Yandle, Emil Battista, Pat O'Connor: Pass. Waiting for the re-opening double.

Due to the format of this forum, you only have to find the pass to get the 100 point score. In a perfect world, you'd have to also tell us what you plan to do over partner's reopening double. Andrew Robson intended to pull it to 4 before bidding 5, but Klinger, Cope, Lawrence, Fordham and Yovich said they would pass the double. The readers agree:   

Robert Black: Pass. And pass partner's reopening double.

Michael Smart: Pass. Bidding 3NT over the likely balancing double presumably shows a single stop only (wouldn't I penalty pass with 2+ diamond tricks?)

Wilma Domjan: Pass. Hope partner doubles and I will pass. NT risky - hands are bad shape.

Margaret Reid: Pass. Pd must X and we get a plus result.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Pass in tempo, so that pard can re-open with a X. Doubt it will play in 3 X though.

Martyn Rew: Pass. 3 by East looks like a good enough contract for play to me. If partner doubles, I will leave it in and if partner offers 3, I can take it to 3NT

Sam Arber: Pass. Wait for reopening double then probably pass

Not everyone was actually hoping for a double; many people seem to be wanting the auction to end here:

Alex Kemeny: Pass. Am I supposed to bid something on this garbage?

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron feels it can't bid notrump with a singleton heart, certainly can't make a negative double (although even if it had a penalty double available, it wouldn't make it), can't support clubs at the four-level on a possible seven-card fit, and can't bid a three-card spade suit (a seven-card fit would be the best-case scenario in spades). It considers this an easy pass.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Content.

Pontus Silow: Pass. Heart jack...or maybe this wasn't a lead problem?

Jacco Hop: Pass. I see no real alternative. Which surprises me since all problems are very tough this month. We don’t have the values for 3NT and it doesn’t get us closer to 6 either.

Michael Burt: Pass. My point count and diamond suit are not good enough to go 3NT. A double would be misleading (could easily end up with partner bidding 4). Partner is almost certain to have 4+ clubs but we need to be able to make 5 for a good result at IMPs and that doesn't look anywhere near certain. I hope partner will double for takeout given partner has at most one diamond or bid something else.

Paul Gipson: Pass. Pass is clearly not best since it seems too obvious.

Tim Trahair: Pass. Reluctant to double in case North goes charging off into 3 or 4. The reasonable alternative seems 4. However pass and hope North is able to take further action. He may be void in diamonds and may bid hearts or double. If the latter we can pass, lead J and hope to get our tricks before East beats us to death with his very good diamonds.

Tim suggests the possibility of a (very) off-shape takeout double, and some did in fact go that way: 

Barbara Hunter: Dbl. Can always revert to clubs if necessary.

Toby Weinstein: Dbl. If pard bids 3 will bid 4.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. Partner can leave in the double or bid. If partner bids hearts maybe NT is on.

Joe O'Flynn: Dbl. Hope to get 500 at least.

Earlier, Christer Enkvist pointed out that if partner can't reopen then we are not missing a game. Not everyone was willing to take that chance:

Frank Campbell: 3NT. Double would surely be for takeout and a trap pass with four clubs may be dodgy. North should have values in the majors so bid the possible vulnerable game.

Richard Morse: 3NT. Least of all evils on another difficult hand. I dislike double, 4 is too committal, 3 with a 3 card suit is mad and I am not good enough for 4.

Mark Guthrie: 3NT. Opponents are both weak and nobody knows what I have got. 3NT must have some play.

Jameson Cole: 3NT. Probably down 1, but may make. I expect the other table to be in game.

Julie Guthrie: 3NT. Wing and a prayer.

Obviously we would like to have a few more points for our 3NT bid, so it's not surprising to see a few conservative club raises:

Manuel Paulo: 4. If partner's opening is minimal - e.g., Axxx KQxx x Axxx - that's enough.

Pär Ol-Mårs: 4. A may not pull its full weight and clubs may be badly distributed, so 4 is enough.

Ron Lel: 4. Easiest hand of the lot. Only one diamond stopper and no source of tricks for NT. Partner certainly has Clubs on this auction.

Dan Baker: 4. I don't fancy NT when East could have KQJxxxx and an entry (of course, he might have overcalled 1 with that, but with a passed partner I'd lean toward the preempt). 4 is not without risks, but if East isn't just having a laugh over there partner has at least four of them and more likely five. High crossruff for 10-11 tricks?

Paul Freeland: 4. I think it's best to try and stop the opponents from finding their heart fit, also I want to try and avoid an awkward decision if partner decides to double 4, if, and when, the opps get there.

Finally, given that Phil and I both feel we are too good for 4, we have promoted the following two options accordingly. No guts, no glory.

Joe Lentz: 4. Planning to sign off in 5 over partner's forward-going suit bid or to pass partner's 5.

Fred Altstock: 5. Let's close off the bidding hopefully. If opposition go to 5 then I can double for a better score.

Thanks to all 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.

(Please be warned -- I haven't processed all the upgrades and promotions yet, so some of the scores will be incorrect. This will be fixed in the next few days.)