Welcome to the final forum of the year, where we reveal which of you is the world's best bidder for 2011. Our first problem features a beautiful 7-card suit, perfect for responding to partner's opening, but our RHO has found the only bid to shut us out of the auction. Can we recover from this interruption?

Alex Kemeny: 1NT. Defending 1 is unlikely to lead to many matchpoints. This bid shows where my stuff is and describes my strength.

Tim Trahair: 1NT. Fits what we have, 6 HCP and cover in both of the opponents' suits. It looks as if P's HCP are in the minors and he may well have a 4144 distribution.

Robert Black: 1NT. I have 6 HCPs and the enemy suits stopped, which may be good news for partner.

Alan Jones: 1NT. I’d rather play than defend.

Wayne Somerville: 1NT. It feels really wrong to pass, nothing else fits.

Margaret Reid: 1NT. 6 points might scrape it in. Pd has some spades and I have hearts. Will be interesting.

Tania Black: 1NT. Nothing else appeals.

Richard Morse: 1NT. Nothing is very attractive but I think I have to keep it open. 2 is tempting, but I think partner may play me for a different/stronger hand than this.

Toby Weinstein: 1NT. Who knows what’s right? Pass could be the right call.

A couple of people say they would not have been shut out in the first place:

Guy Herzmark: 1NT. Could have bid this the previous round.

Doris Anderson: 1NT. I would have bid 1NT as my first bid, and let it stand, unless North bids on.

1NT received only one vote from the expert panel:

Phil Gue: 1NT. Pass could be the winner, but I would have bid this over 1 (with slightly less hearts). Now partner can happily do the right thing (hopefully pass, or 2 with a 6-card suit).

In spite of the opponent's heart overcall, there were actually more votes for 2 than for 1NT:

Jacco Hop: 2. Shows a weak trap pass with long hearts. That is just what I have. Really depends on how much I can shorten myself. Passing out the one level is usually really bad. If someone finds another bid I am probably well placed. The chances for partner to have the missing heart are about 95% since both North and East passed 1. With 3046 he would not have passed I guess.

Manuel Paulo: 2. Natural. Consider, e.g., the following layout, where West makes 1 and South makes 2:

xx  x   AQxx AQ10xxx  KQxxxx  ---  KJxx  xxx  Jx AKJxx 10xx  KJx A103  Q1085432  94  7

Carl Brueckner: 2. Not a game for wimps.

David Matthews: 2. Probably the best contract as we know where the hearts are. Should be able to make enough of them sitting behind East even if North is void.

Fraser Rew: 2. This should play double dummy, give or take. I expect both 1 and 2 to make. I’ll go for a skate sometimes, but more often I'll turn a small minus into a small plus, or a small plus into a bigger one, which is what Matchpoints all is about.

Graham Wakefield: 2. To pass 1 is almost certainly conceding a minus score as East's pass suggests spade support. Partner can surely take care of several non trump losers and East will find 5 card trump length awkward on defence.

Charles Scholl: 2. How bad can this be?

Actually, it could be quite bad. If you were a defending against opponents who were in 2, you would be quite happy to double holding AKJ97, which is East's likely holding here. Even if he doesn't double, two vulnerable undertricks are still a possibility. This led the majority to take the conservative route:

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. Other choice would be 2, but this suit so weak (afraid about "kiss of death").

JC Clement: Pass. 2x would be costly; North is probably 3145, we have no fit and no points, so pass...

Dan Baker: Pass. No support at all for either minor, no tricks for NT. 2 would be natural, but there's no chance I want to play that with at least four trump losers.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. I see no alternative to Pass. In hearts you may lose 4 tricks in trumps alone.

Barbara Hunter: Pass. Looks too dangerous to bid, just hope to be able to make life difficult for the opponents.

Martyn Rew: Pass. even non-vul, you would risk going down by more than their part score if you did anything but pass.

I suspect that there would have been a majority vote for 2 if we were non-vul (in fact the original problem was non-vul, but we changed the vulnerability in an attempt to make a tougher problem).

A couple of people expressed doubt about East's heart suit, although they were still not tempted to bid:

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bridge Baron is fooled by the probable psyche, I guess. It doesn't like to bid a suit after the opponents have shown it.

Duncan Roe: Pass. No support for minor suits, so don't like double. East might have overcalled with only four hearts, but that still leaves only 2 between partner and West, so won't bid my QT-headed suit.

Ron Lel: Pass. There are 2 possibilities here, Pass and 2. My first instinct was to bid 2. However hearts are likely to break 5-1, even if my RHO is predisposed to overcalling on 4 card suits. The second reason for passing is partner's failure to do anything. He is short in hearts and yet has not doubled or bid 2 or made any sort of move. My guess is that the opps are in a 4-2 fit and I don't think it will play particularly well.

Don Hinchey: Pass. Anyone for penalty doubles of overcalls?

If we ever do adopt penalty doubles of overcalls (I already play some with my regular partner), I'm not sure this hand would qualify. Even if 1 is failing, I'd never sit for a penalty double of any suit they run to (even if they run to partner's suit). A couple of people were worried about the opponents finding a better spot:

David Woulds: Pass. In view of pd's silence, he's marked with spades and tempting to double, but that may drive opps into their diamond fit. Hopefully 1 is two off.

Kees Schaafsma: Pass. Double - which shows a penalty double of 1 - could easily turn a plus into a minus should either pard or opps choose another spot. A plus in a contract of our own is hardly conceivable.

Dean Pokorny: Pass. They have an excellent fit in diamonds and probably just 4-3 or 4-2 in spades. 

Some people commented that even if we do have a contract, we may end up in a misfit anyway:

Daniel Skipper: Pass. If I bid 1NT partner will be there with 2.

Murray Perrin: Pass. Prefer to defend rather than have partner bid 2.

Damo Nair: Pass. This feels like a 2 bid. But with all of South's HCP in opponent's suits and a singleton for North, I'll take my chances and pass.

Tony Treloar: Pass. Doesn't seem like a good idea to get involved on this misfitting hand.

Roger Yandle: Pass. This looks like a huge misfit so I'm choosing to defend. Hopefully we'll get a plus score.

Michael Davy: Pass. We have nothing to compete with.

Ron Landgraff: Pass. Misfit - stop bidding before they start doubling you! 1 will likely not play well. Partner ruffs hearts and I ruff the minors.

And the most common comment, any plus score is a good score:

Michael Smart: Pass. Defending seems the best chance at a plus score. Things aren't breaking and, looking at my heart quality, bidding 2 is asking to get doubled. On this auction partner probably has four spades. On any lead, we will get ruffs and probably trump promotions.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Let sleeping dogs lie. Partner's hand is minor-suited -- e.g. Qxx x KJxx AKxxx. If partner has more spades, then well and good. Anyway, his pass probably means he's not strong. If we try to play in hearts, we have at least five trump losers. In theory, double or 1NT could still work but, in practice, it is unlikely that partner will bring himself to pass.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I don't know if partner's pass is a trap. If it is, my pass is likely to be less expensive than double if it isn't. If I could make 1NT or 2 then 1 is going off.

Pontus Silow: Pass. When partner has what it takes to make 2 it could still be beneficial to defend.

John Donovan: Pass. Minimum hand with stoppers in each of the opps' suits. If p leads club you could make 3 tricks here, if p leads hearts (assuming singleton and East has five) he can overruff declarer on the heart return.

Emil Battista: Pass. Partner likely to be 4045. If he has the right cards (A, heart void) we can have some cross-ruffing fun.

Christer Enkvist: Pass. The occasional 110 in 2 may easily be a huge minus. Odds on that EW have 4-3 in spades and we have a nice cross-ruff in defence.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Although 1NT is tempting, where do we get tricks? Best chance for a plus is probably pass.

One person raised the interesting point that even a minus score might be good (as long as it's smaller than 100):

Michael Burt: Pass. This looks like a misfit situation and 1NT may not play well - may struggle to get +90. We may be able to set up some sort of cross ruff situation and get them one off for a good score. Even if they just make, our minus 90 may be a better outcome than going one down in 1NT.

John R. Mayne: Pass. Partner's pass is interesting; I doubt he'd pass with a heart void or lots of minor suit cards. 1 will be very sticky for declarer. If I had QT87643 of hearts, I would bid 2.

That was an eerie observation, John; in fact that was the exact heart holding when this problem arose! We removed the 7 and the 6 (and upped the vulnerability) because we felt the 2 bid was too obvious otherwise. The problem is from British Bridge magazine, but unfortunately there was no full deal.

Our next problem finds us on the receiving end of partner's preemptive effort. Fortunately we are vulnerable, so we can trust partner to be in a narrow and disciplined range... right?

Ron Landgraff: 5. 4 may make or be down 1 or 2 at the most. 5 should have reasonable play with the vulnerable, first seat, preempt. 5 I will double.

Emil Battista: 5. A 3 level pre-empt at unfavourable vulnerability should be based on a bit more than "I have 7 cards in suit therefore I bid 3". If Paul Marston was sitting opposite I would be confident that he would not hold a 4 card side suit. Pass, double or 4 may all work out better.

Michael Burt: 5. Assuming partner is reliable, at the vulnerability partner should be within 2 tricks of making. I have 4 tricks plus the Q. Making 5 should be a better than 50% proposition.

Daniel Skipper, Pontus Silow: 5. Cos it's going to make. 

Alexander Cook: 5. Partner should have a good suit for 3. Double and 4 are highly speculative.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. Partner should have seven winners for his vul pre-empt. Prefer to support diamonds than introduce the spades. West could have four or five spades. My partner does not have four, and East would bid 3 with more than one spade loser.

Guy Herzmark: 5. North should have 7 playing tricks in diamonds, I have four more plus Q making 11.

Kees Schaafsma: 5. 10 iron-clad tricks in diamonds are enough to hope for an eleventh and too much to double. Not tempted to bid 4 which probably fails if dummy doesn't deliver the A.

Some even considered a slam:

Michael Smart: 5. Hoping partner doesn’t have the perfect hand (AK, tripleton spade, singleton club).

Alex Kemeny: 5. If we played disciplined preempts, partner would be showing 8 tricks and so would almost certainly have A or K, in which case I would bid 6. But using AB, I will chicken out with 5.

Are you calling us undisciplined? Fair enough, I guess this forum has a bit of a history -- but vulnerable we are almost always up to strength.

Several people wanted to bid a natural 4NT, but no one believed it was possible. I think 4NT makes a lot more sense as natural than as Blackwood here, and it's a clear winner on the actual hand. An interesting point for partnership discussion.

Phil Gue: 5. I might have tried 3NT rather than 5 if East had passed, but I think I have enough tricks for 5 unless they take 2 club tricks and a trump trick. After all partner has opened vulnerable. I'd love to try 4NT natural but partner is likely to think otherwise!

Jacco Hop: 5. 4NT natural seems to be the bid. Unfortunately that is not what it means. Gambling 6 seems like a mistake since you need spades to run for 4 tricks which is far from certain. 4 is not wise since if you have to exit with a trump you are likely down. If they start with 3 club tricks that is kind of bad luck.

Rainer Herrmann: 5. 4NT should probably be natural here but I am not prepared to risk it undiscussed.

Peter Vlas: 5. I don't like to look silly when they pick up 4+ club tricks in 4NT (if partner understands it is to play). 4 would be an enormous and ridiculous gamble.

Robert Black: 5. I was planning to bid 3NT, but the Director may rule against me if I try that now.

Ron Lel: 5. Non vul vul this would be a very easy pass. At this vulnerability, the 3 bid should be worth something. You have three possibilities, 4, 4NT and 5. 4 is a bit dangerous as the opps won't rescue you by doubling if it is wrong, 4NT would be great if partner read it as "to play", but it isn't and she won't, so 5 it is. This should have a decent play.

A few people thought the spade suit was worth a look, but contrary to Ron's comment, many of them were indeed hoping the opponents would rescue them:

Don Hinchey: 5. 4 is tempting; 5 is convincing.

Wayne Somerville: 4. I may pull to 5 if doubled, but I am bargaining on partner not having too many club losers.

David Woulds: 4. If it gets whacked, I may retreat to 5.

Carl Brueckner: 4. Running to 5 if doubled.

Sam Arber: 4. Should show some tolerance for diamonds.

Tony Treloar: 4. Let's hope that partner does the right thing.

JC Clement: 4. With a good chance to make it!

Duncan Roe: 4. Have a feeling 4 could make, so choice is Pass or compete. So I compete.

Pass received very little support, but the choice is backed up with hard math:

Bridge Baron: Pass. Pure simulation: minus 136.25 for passing, minus 285.5 for doubling, minus 344.50 for 5.

Fraser Rew: Pass. I must be getting old.

The more common defensive approach was to hope for a penalty (although one of the doublers thought it was for takeout):

Tim Trahair: Dbl. Forcing, and telling P we have values in the black suits. Together we seem likely to have about 24 HCP. Seems unlikely P will have four spades and we may well end up in 4 or 5.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. I assume that there are 18 or 19 total tricks and that we win nine or more tricks at diamonds. Having chosen to double, because it is wrong if and only if they make 10 tricks at hearts (I should pass) or we make 11 tricks at diamonds (I should bid), I don't envisage to bid spades, as it looks somewhat adventurous.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Should work -- maybe pd has A or K I'll lead A and look at dummy.

Charles Scholl: Dbl. Surest plus.

Dean Pokorny: Dbl. Taking sure profit. Both 5 and 4 are too speculative.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. Double stands out for a free 100 marks. Partner and RHO have lots of red cards, so spades are unlikely to break. There's no guarantee that 4 has ten tricks so double is a fair gamble and 300 may be necessary if we can make a partscore in diamonds.

Nigel gets his 100 free marks, less 60% penalty for conceding a doubled game: total mark 40. The actual top score went to the raise of partner's suit, in a landslide vote for both experts and readers:

Stephen Bartos: 5. 5 looks like making on this distribution; if opponents compete at the 5 level, can double then.

Derek Pocock: 5. Hoping for discards when heart lead is taken and spades cashed.

Graham Wakefield: 5. Likely to be better than 4, for which partner will often not have even 3 card support.

Doris Anderson: 5. North must have at least 6 winners in diamonds. My hand has four winners once trumps are cleared. It's worth risking that North has one more winner, and it is a better bet than 4.

Frank Campbell: 5. Only logical bid. Where will my club losers go in 4?

David Matthews: 5. With East holding at least 7 or 8 hearts, the penalty may not be enough. 5 figures to make most of the time.

Many people suggested that although we have 11 tricks, they might get three first. You can't cater for this though, so it didn't affect their choice:

Roger Yandle: 5. Double, 4 or even 6 might be right. Hopefully partner doesn't have three small clubs.

Tania Black: 5. Should make unless they can cash three top clubs.

Dan Baker: 5. Figure partner for six tricks, I've got five more (counting the trump Q). Hope partner doesn't have three little clubs.

Henri de Jong: 5. Hopefully we haven't got three quick club losers. We have far more chance for +600 than +800.

John Donovan: 5. Ace of opps suit and good hand - worth a shot. P may be able to discard clubs on your spades.

Martyn Rew: 5. You're welcome, partner. Heart lead will help.

Barbara Hunter: 5. Fingers crossed.

Michael Davy: 5. Our good spade holding might be a myth if we defend. Hopefully partner is short in clubs.

Murray Perrin: 5. 5 or double is a toss up as 4 might make as opps have clubs. Depends on lead.

Yes, there's another advantage of 5; it could be a two-way shot, in case 4 makes:

Nigel Kearney: 5. We have a fair chance of 11 tricks and they may well go to 5. Also 4 may be making. The problem with 4 is that LHO can choose to defend when 4 is down and sacrifice otherwise.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5. And then double everything that they bid. 4 might make, 5 might make. Other contracts: probably not.

Richard Morse: 5. This slightly depends on the style of opening preempts at unfavourable vulnerability but 5 should not be far away and 4 is no certainty to go down.

Liston Meintjes: 5. You have to try 5. Everyone else will! On a heart lead, you may be able to drop club losers on the good spades. Can they make 4? You are probably looking at one heart and two spade winners and then? So, of course, you have to go for 5 even if you go off two (doubled?).

John R. Mayne: 5. Law of total whatsis? Maybe they'll bid 5. Maybe they can make and we're down only one. It looks sick, but I think this is better than shooting 4 and both double and pass look very unattractive.

The full deal:

765  6   AK98652 Q2  J1084  532  J103  985  9 KQ109874 7  AKJ4 AKQ32  AJ  Q4  10763

We can make any of our likely contracts, including 5, 4 and 4NT. The opponents can make their 4. At the table South doubled 4, a spectacular failure.

Our next problem attracted answers for four different levels of clubs, from passing 2 to jumping to 5. An impressive result when you consider that 85% of the experts chose not to show clubs at all! Let's look at the club supporters, starting at the bottom:

Ron Landgraff: Pass. Game appears unlikely with the at least partial misfit. Of course, partner could be 6-4 with great hearts, but with an average hand we could be down a big number if partner drives to game or even 3. My glass is half empty.

Duncan Roe: Pass. I already bid my 7 HCP. There might be the odd overtrick, but I can't see us getting to game.

Doris Anderson: Pass. I don't see us in game, so partscore in clubs looks good.

Frank Campbell: Pass. I have 7 points and 7 losers, partner is minimum and I can't see us going places. 2 may well play ok but at IMPs I don't want to find out. A weak jump shift as my first bid may have been better.

Emil Battista: Pass. Looking like we found our best spot. I will show signs of life when opponents bid diamonds - but only if they bid 2.

Liston Meintjes: Pass. North probably has six hearts and five clubs (at least 5-4) - and probably no spades or just one. you cannot go on in spades and your K may not be worth 3 points. So pass as this is the best fit. The opponents may enter the bidding (in diamonds) and your partner will get a chance to tell you if he has anything else to say. Will you bid spades over 2?

Pontus Silow: Pass. Well...I'm happy.

Upgrading the hand to a move towards game:

Dan Baker: 3. Crazy hand to evaluate. Give partner xx-KQJxx-QJx-Axxx and 3 is too high; Void Axxxx Axx AJxxx might even make 7 (although it's odds-against). We have one fit and a potential crossruff, but there's no chance of setting up the long spades since the only entries are on the crossruff.

Barbara Hunter: 3. Hope this is positive enough.

Larry Brose: 3. I'm ready to bid spades again.

Dean Pokorny: 3. If partner accepts the light invite (say, with 3NT), I will offer 4 on the way to 5.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. If we have a game, I'll have to make the one positive sound I can. The spades aren't good enough for 3 and 2 could be (a lot) weaker than this.

Michael Smart: 3. Not proud of the raise, but if partner has enough for another bid, the spade game remains in the picture.

Margaret Reid: 3. Show support.

Kees Schaafsma: 3. Support with support. Should pard decide to pass, nothing is wasted.

Robert Black: 3. We have a fit. Hoping to hear something more from partner, preferably 3.

Leigh Matheson: 3. With silent opponents (for now) where are the diamonds? Partner probably has 1-5-3-4 shape (or a void spade). Give up on spades. Give up on game. With 17 total tricks likely we should always compete to 3.

Daniel Skipper: 3. Worth one push.

None of the 5 bidders chose to give a comment, although there were quite a few of them. And just one comment in support of 4:

Michael Burt: 4. I have a 7 loser hand in clubs, partner has opened (7 loser hand or better), the opposition hasn't bid and so the hand is worth an invite.

The majority felt that playing in spades would be the best way to get full mileage from the spade suit (although some got a little over-excited): 

Murray Perrin: 3. Forcing; partner will bid either 4, 4 or 3NT after 4 or 3NT bid 5 shape is great. Had a similar hand the other day which made 5 and 7.

Fraser Rew: 3. Based on zero experience with this sort of hand.

Martyn Rew: 3. Partner having four clubs makes this hand look a lot more impressive.

Manuel Paulo: 3. To bid game looks foolery, but one spade in partner's good hand may be enough, as in this layout:

x  AKxxx   Axx Axxx  KQx  Q10xx  10xxxx  J  A10 Jxx QJxx  Q10xx J865432  5  K  K764

The top score went to the simple non-forcing 2 bid.

Graham Wakefield: 2. Partner is likely to be very short in spades as neither opponent has mentioned diamonds yet, but probably will if allowed at the two level. 2 will still have good play given the club side suit fit.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. Another free 100 marks. Game is unlikely but spades are a better prospect than clubs.

John Donovan: 2. Assuming p is showing five hearts and four clubs and slightly better than minimum opener, your partnership could still have just 21 HCP. The spades aren't worth much though and may have 3 losers - but you must show your extra length.

Rainer Herrmann: 2. I wait to hear why rebidding your admittedly weak seven card major suit is wrong here.  

Carl Brueckner: 2. Not enough value for a club raise so I'll play in my 7-1 spade fit and hopefully 7-2.

Don Hinchey: 2. Old age makes one timid.

Guy Herzmark: 2. Partner's bid is non-forcing; prefer clubs to hearts; little chance of game; but 2 will probably score more than 2 even if partner is void in spades.

Alex Kemeny: 2. Show the long major rather than latching onto clubs.

Peter Qvist: 2. The alternative is 3, splinter, but with nearly half of my points in the splinter suit, naaa.

Bridge Baron: 2. The seven-bagger doesn't cause Bridge Baron to break system here: five or more spades, less than a game force.

Alexander Cook: 2. The spades will be useless in a club contract.

Wayne Somerville: 2. Where are the diamonds? Partner probably has them too, so stay low.

While 2 is not encouraging at all (in spite of a couple of the comments in the next block), a huge number of people entertained hopes that partner would still find a raise:

Ron Lel: 2. Hoping to hear partner raise. It is unlikely, I know, but this hand is likely to play better in spades than in clubs. Good hand for weak jump shifts.

JC Clement: 2. Can't pass, 4 may be on...

Toby Weinstein: 2. Hope pard can support spades or rebid clubs.

Jacco Hop: 2. My hand won't play that well in clubs usually. I have a 7 card suit and that is rebiddable for me. Our most likely game still is 4.

Charles Scholl: 2. I owe partner another bid with this holding and 4 is still possible if partner can continue.

David Matthews: 2. If partner has any support then game is a good chance so I must try that option. The likelihood is that I will be struggling opposite a singleton or void.

Christer Enkvist: 2. As soon as we get a 2-card support from partner we will be in 4. Unfortunately, if we raise in clubs partner often bids 3NT and we will have no idea what to do.

Well I'd know what to do: 4. But getting the spade suit in now is much better.

Tim Trahair: 2. Confirms we have 6+ spades and leaves the bidding open. If P tries 3, 4th suit forcing, we will end up in 4. However he may well have a couple of spades.

Peter Vlas: 2. If partner starts to bid silly things we at least have an escape in clubs now. 2 should be NF, constructive.

John R. Mayne: 2. A club game is not really in the picture. If 2 gets passed out, it's probably right.

Richard Morse: 2. Long suit worth one more try despite the quality.

David Woulds: 2. Passing 2 could easily be the only way to achieve a plus, but at this scoring, I have to show at least six spades in case pd has extras and support.

Tony Treloar: 2. Tells the story of the hand I think. Partner might find another bid with extras otherwise I expect to make this. Don't think I can make game unless partner has another bid.

Roger Yandle: 2. This is a bit of an underbid but it doesn't stop partner from bidding on with the right hand.

Damo Nair: 2. Why not? If North can make more noise we may have game.  

As we discussed last month, the point range of a simple overcall has been gradually increasing over the years, largely due to the need to prepare for vigorous competition from Bergen-trained opponents. One reader last month even suggested an overcall with 20 points. So here is a simple textbook problem, a modern referendum on the cutoff point between a power double and a direct overcall. With the expert vote split right down the middle, this hand appears to be the actual borderline.

Mike Lawrence: 2. In 1960, you could double with this hand and hope to have time to sort it out. Now if you double, you hear the bidding at 3 or higher before you get a second chance. This way, I can double later which feels best.

Tim Bourke: Dbl. Double. This is bidding 101. How can this be a problem for this forum?

I think Mike's reasoning is more convincing than Tim's (but then I did hand pick these two comments to support my own view). Most of the panellists stated that it was a close decision, and several of the readers agreed:

Nigel Kearney: Dbl. For me this is right on the boundary between 2 and double.

John R Mayne: Dbl. A horse race, huh? I'm certain that over 1, you should bid 1 with KQT65-5-A52-AKJ6, but I'm less sure here.

Dan Baker: Dbl. Just strong enough for double-then-2.

JC Clement: 2. Difficult decision between 2 and double.

Ron Lel: 2. Double is certainly a possibility and I would not quibble if partner doubled. The modern tendency seems to be to bid on a 5-card suit these days unless you are so strong that you have to double. This hand does not qualify for that.

Rainer Herrmann: 2. A matter of style. However, over spade raises 2 followed by double leaves you well placed.

Jacco Hop: 2. Bid hearts first, double for takeout later. Double then double is fine as well but my strong heart suit seems biddable to me.

The majority of readers were much more decisive about their choice, although many of the doublers simply echoed Tim Bourke's comment:

David Matthews: Dbl. Is there any other choice? More interesting is the continuation over 2.

Richard Morse: Dbl. What else? (I hope this is the majority choice!)

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. I have a takeout double of 1.

Michael Burt: Dbl. 12+ points, 3 card support in all unbid suits, this looks to be a textbook takeout double bid. What am I missing?

Emil Battista: Dbl. I must be missing something vital here. But double looks like the right start to describing this hand.

Tony Treloar, Peter Vlas, Barbara Whitmee: Dbl. This is too good for an overcall.

Christer Enkvist: Dbl. Way too strong for 2.

Interestingly, while the readers' votes favoured Double by a margin of 2 to 1, the number of comments received was equal for each choice. Draw your own conclusions from that. Here are the rest of the arguments for Double:

Graham Wakefield: Dbl. Dbl is significantly more descriptive for partner than a 2 bid. Another turn awaits, and we will need to solicit partner's input then if not already provided.

Ron Landgraff: Dbl. 2 could easily lose game or slam. I'd like another heart and/or heart honour, but I don't have such.

Barbara Hunter: Dbl. A good hand can show the hearts after partner's reply.

Bridge Baron: Dbl. Bridge Baron doubles on most patterns with this strong of a hand, especially with no doubleton (or shorter) and only one tripleton in the unbid suits.

Tim Trahair: Dbl. Not quite the right shape for 2 and possibly too strong. Where we go next depends on what P bids. Game could well be on.

Kees Schaafsma: Dbl. Over pard's 2, 2 shows hearts and clubs.

Robert Black: Dbl. Partner will expect me to have 6 if I overcall 2, but may not if I bid 2 over his 2. The real problem will come finding a bid over 2.

Doris Anderson: Dbl. Whatever bid North makes, I can then show my hearts.

One factor skewing the data in favour of Double, is the fact that we have given you a reasonably takeout-suitable shape. If we moved one or two diamonds into the spade suit, I'm sure there would be a spike in favour of 2 (even if we increased the hand to 18 or 19 points):

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Good to double if short in opps suit. Will show hearts if necessary later.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Happy to be dummy in any of the other three suits - will raise hearts.

Guy Herzmark: Dbl. Best to show support for all unbid suits; if partner has a spade stop 3NT may be on, or another game if not.

Michael Smart: Dbl. Covers all possibilities. I'm content to pass 2-minor, and over any other action by partner I can show my strength and the fifth heart.

Larry Brose: Dbl. I'm looking at partial game, so I want to find out what suit is best for partner.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. This call would be quite correct with the same values and 1444. I don't see that the 6 converted in the 6 makes a great difference.

Alexander Cook: Dbl. This hand is too strong for 2 for me. The 1534 shape screams double. If opponents raise to 3 or 4 I can double again.

Liston Meintjes: Dbl. What a perfect hand for a takeout double. You will probably get a chance to show your hearts depending on the subsequent bidding.

John Donovan: Dbl. You can support anything your p bids. If you bid 2 it could be dropped and you miss out on a game contract that you should be looking for here. If p bid 1NT you can safely go 2 then.

Looking now to the 2 bidders, who all noticed that it would be inconvenient to show the hearts later after the opponents choose their preferred level of spades:

Dean Pokorny: 2. Since there is a danger of being preempted in spades, bidding 2 and doubling spades is the optimal strategy.

Leigh Matheson: 2. Followed by double. Better than Double then 2. This auction could get ugly quickly.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. And a double later to show this maximum overcall.

Frank Campbell: 2. Bid what I've got. Double or 3 are future possibilities depending on what happens next.

Don Hinchey: 2. Expecting to have an opportunity to further describe my hand.

Charles Scholl: 2. The hand is strong enough to double first and then bid my suit, but the suit is not great, the bidding is unlikely to stop here, and I can show added strength later.

Pontus Silow: 2. I prefer to show my five-card major first and then announce extra values. If I double first and West has a preemptive raise to 3 I am awkwardly placed.

Wayne Somerville: 2. I will double any number of spades next time around.

Daniel Skipper: 2. I've got a suit to bid.

David Woulds: 2. If 2 comes back, we are well placed to double for takeout.

Roger Yandle: 2. If partner can't move over this then I doubt we've missed anything. I'll double 2 if it comes back to me.

Michael Davy: 2. If West passes then North may join the party.

Stephen Bartos: 2. It would be exaggerating the strength of this hand to double then show hearts if partner bid either of the minors.

Toby Weinstein: 2. Not strong enough to double then bid hearts.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. Prefer to bid hearts first, then double later (if given another chance) than reverse the order of these actions.

Murray Perrin: 2. Strong hand, yes, but do you want to introduce hearts at the 3 or 4 level e.g. 1 3 back to you, double on next bid?

Peter Nuoristo: 2. Then possibly I can double their spade bid.

Fraser Rew: 2. Unless my suit is bad, I prefer to overcall and then double. I'd prefer to have better hearts, but by my lights this is just enough.

Naturally we have no full deal for this problem, it was just constructed to find out how many people are willing to overcall with 17 points. The answer turns out to be "about half". I'll be back in a couple of years with a 19-count.

Our final problem is a matter of valuation, where the opponents have forced us to make an immediate decision at an uncomfortable level. A handful of readers followed the well known rule, "the five level belongs to the opponents":

John Donovan: Dbl. East is sacrificing over our assumed 4 here. 5 a risky contract - p only bid 3, not 4, over the interference.

Barbara Whitmee: Dbl. Hoping for plus 800. Could bid 5, but West could have A, A and K.

Leigh Matheson: Dbl. My heart holding is too strong to bid on.

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. Only bid 5 over 5 with extreme shape.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. They have sacrificed and we need to extract the full penalty for that. 5 of a major is a horrible contract -- even with partner promising support.

Nigel Kearney: Dbl. We could have 11 tricks and only collect 300 from 5x but quite often this won't be the case so I am taking the money.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. We should defeat this comfortably.

Fraser Rew: Dbl. It's tempting to bid slam, but partner has shown a minimum-ish hand, and I have a lot of losers to dispose of. I may go +500 vs +650, but I think it will normally be a lot better than that.

So if the five level belongs to the opponents, what about the six level?

Murray Perrin: 6. Depends on style and what 3 shows. I take it as 15 plus or great shape so same thing.

Emil Battista: 6. Double should give us a positive. 5 likely to give us a bigger positive. 6 the biggest positive if opponents think I have a heart void the heart loser can disappear on a diamond winner after trumps are drawn. Sometimes partner holds the right cards and opponents misdefend!

Stephen Bartos: 6. East trying to obstruct us investigating slam is a good indication that slam is on: why not take advantage of that information?

Damo Nair: 6. Hoping for an honour to 4 trumps in the North hand.

Pontus Silow: 6. I wonder if 4 - or even pass - by East would have been more effective than that jump.

Ron Landgraff: 6. It could be a 4 or 6 hand. This time I see the glass as half full. If it was a long match, I might double and take the sure plus.

Tim Trahair: 6. We have a double fit and by the look of it 30+ HCP if we play in spades. EW are muddying the waters as best they can. P doesn't know how strong we are so to bid 5 may mean we miss slam.

Margaret Reid: 6. Will make on a good day. Pd won't have too many hearts and we have a diamond fit.

Guy Herzmark: 6. No space to check controls but partner has reversed so should be 16 or more points. Assuming no points in hearts and KQJ and KQ gives 11 -- so North has probably got AQ or void heart.

Some of the 6 bidders were not high on confidence, which is to be expected when bidding under such pressure:

Toby Weinstein: 6. 5 could be the limit.

Richard Morse: 6. Anything might make from 4 to 7 so I will bid what feels like the percentage shot.

Wayne Somerville: 6. I hate hanging partner for competing, but slam makes on the likely heart lead opposite AQxx-xx-KQxxx-xx and I'd expect a slightly better hand. My main fear about bidding slam is the fact that partner is not that unlikely to have a singleton heart too.

Charles Scholl: 6. No wasted values in either hand, partner can't bid it over 5 by me, and it should have reasonable play. Downside is that it might not make and might not be bid at the other table.

A couple of people, panellists and readers, had an ulterior motive for bidding the slam:

Andrew Robson: 6. (1) I may make (2) They may take the save in which case I don't care whether I make.

Larry Cohen: 6. No way to intelligently investigate a grand slam, so I won't bid 6 or 6. I expect to make this (partner could be shaded, but still has a good hand). Even if I am wrong, it may induce a phantom save.

Derek Pocock: 6. No way of knowing but may push them to 7 which we can cheerfully double maybe for 1400!

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 6. Feels right. Opposite an ace and two kings we're almost home. Partner should have slightly more. And we can always double 7 :)

Graham Wakefield: 6. Even if partner has stretched to bid 3 a spade slam would be unlucky not to have a 50% chance, and could be cold. And EW are still under pressure to consider 7.

While the majority of the readers were not willing to go to the six level, a handful of people were considering seven:

David Woulds: 6. 6 is very optimistic, there aren't many hands for pd to bid only 3 and the grand is laydown, but I have to ask the question. 5 seems wimpish, surely pd can't be any worse than AQxx-x-KQxxx-Kxx to bid 3.

Peter Qvist: 6. Invitation to 7.

Don Hinchey: 6. We could make five or seven. I'm going to try to split the difference. (Easier to sell to teammates if it goes wrong!)

Kees Schaafsma: 6. No grand slam tries with freaky distributions around.

Christer Enkvist: 6. Sometimes the only way to seven is through simple bidding.

A handful of readers (and a third of the panel) felt the best way to find the best level was to start with a forcing pass. We don't actually discuss forcing passes in AB Standard -- it's a very basic system -- but (almost) everyone is in agreement that this auction certainly qualifies, with the opponents holding a passed hand opposite a preempt.

Peter Vlas: Pass. It should be clear to North that we have the majority of points and that this is a forcing pass. Why else would East bid a preemptive 5?

JC Clement: Pass. Obviously forcing; if partner doubles, we will then bid 5, showing a hand near the slam.

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Pass and Pull should show some encouragement for going on.

Robert Black: Pass. Who knows? I think we were due to make 4, and think that 5 is failing. Doubling may stop partner going on to 5 to make.

Bridge Baron: Pass. Bit of a hole in Bridge Baron's logic here: it simulates to see that doubling, at +471.5, is marginally better than 5, at +445.6. But it then decides its hearts are too weak to double, and passes instead. 5 is probably best.

That computer gets more human every month.

Dan Baker: 6. I don't think this is a forcing-pass auction (we weren't committed to game by the auction yet, although I was certainly heading there). If it were, I'd pass and pull. As it is, I'm put to a guess, and I'll guess that slam is better than the 50-50 bet it has to be for this to break even.

Ron Lel: 6. Pass is clearly forcing at this vulnerability and playing with a real partner I would pass, then bid 5 over a double as a slam try. However this is an action that the partnership clearly needs to have discussed. I am just going to punt 6 here, knowing full well this may be wrong as partner may well be under pressure to bid over 3.

Jacco Hop: 5. In standard I think pass is NF although it is clear they are saving here. Partner will bid 3 on almost any hand with four spades. I would like to make a slam try here but since pass is NF I have to make a guess myself. I choose to bid only 5 since partner will often have short hearts as well and that is very bad for our chances in slam. Doubling is probably 300 and that is not enough for 650. If it is slam they might save against it and we won't lose that many imps. maybe a poker style 6 bid is best since they will think you are cold and save. With a real 3 bid he would have bid 4 now so I will try to score 650.

The largest reader vote was for the conservative 5, with 41% of the vote (and one lone expert):

Michael Ware: 5. Bidding more is tempting, but partner could only manage 3 over 3 so I'll go quietly. Occasionally it is right to bid 5 over 5.

Barbara Hunter: 5. Does the five level belong to the opposition?

John R. Mayne: 5. Doubling is shooting for +300, and slamming is headed into probable heart duplication and bad breaks in the minors. Today, the five level belongs to us.

David Matthews: 5. The five level belongs to the opponents unless you are cold for 11 tricks vulnerable. There is a nice double fit but I will leave the slam decision to partner as he may have stretched over 3.

Michael Burt: 5. 5x needs to be four down for a good score and may only be two or three down. On the bidding partner may well have one heart and we may also be missing a king and queen - slam looks questionable. 5 is a compromise - good opposition bidding.

Manuel Paulo: 5. I expect to make 11 or 12 tricks, but proposing slam -- via pass and pull - is too extreme.

Tania Black: 5. I have one more spade than I promised. and I think that East is void in the suit, so 5 may be making.

Alan Jones: 5. It sounds as if partner and I are playing with a 30 point deck.

True, and holding about 27 of those 30 points.

Tony Treloar: 5. The vulnerability is in favour of 5 -- more afraid of making twelve tricks than ten as it is likely that we have very few values in hearts.

Roger Yandle: 5. partner might have the right cards for slam but I'm not sure how to find out without committing us anyway.

Dean Pokorny: 5. Since 5 shows a decent offensive hand with no heart wastage, partner could raise it to slam with an excellent shapely hand (say: AQxx-xxx-KQJxx-x), trying to aim the "Rule of 26".

Michael Davy: 5. tempted to bid the slam but partner may anyway.

Michael Smart: 5. With a void heart partner may have done more than bid 3, so I expect to lose A and minor trick on most days.

We'll give the final word for the year (and another 100 points) to Nigel, who leaves us with a Christmas message:

Nigel Guthrie: 6. A poker semi-bluff. 6 may not be makeable but you intend to risk a double if opponents take out insurance. Happy Christmas and thank you for all the challenging and instructive bidding competitions! November problem 1 may lead optimists astray but the other four are easier and should provide a Christmas gift to everybody of 400 free marks!

Thanks Nigel, and thanks for your insightful comments over the last few years; you've certainly had more than your fair share of perfect scores. Not this month though; the perfect scores went to Gareth, Christer, Pravin, Damo and Bruce.
 

Gareth Birdsall's 500 score springs him into the top spot for the year. Gareth (pictured) is from Hampshire England. He represented England in the 2003 World Youth Teams, finishing 7th, and placed 25th out of 220 in the 2001 World Junior Pairs. As the Readers' Race winner for the year, Gareth will be joining our magazine's expert panel for 2012. Special thank you to last year's winner Paul Gipson, who has filled the guest spot admirably in 2011. Thanks to everyone for all your comments; happy holidays, and we hope to see you all again next year. We already have an unusual selection of problems online for our first forum of 2012 -- you can get off to an early start here.