There are some wild hands floating around this month, so thankfully we get to start with a nice normal one. An opening bid from partner, the opponents have finally kept quiet for once, and we have a lovely rebiddable suit.

Introduction To Bridge, the beginners' text by Paul Marston, states: "As responder, you will usually be in a position to place the contract by the second round of bidding". So this should be a simple problem.

Joe Barda: 5. Partner's diamonds must be good and I don't want to play the hand and risk a heart lead if partner has the king.

Linda Sloan: 5. I feel we should be in game with points and distribution.

Duncan Roe: 3. Too many losers for 5 straight off.

Andrew Gordon: 3. Partner may be able to bid 3NT.

Fred Altstock: 3NT. Partner may have one stopper in each major so my clubs should be able to bring in game - maybe a bit of a gamble.

Mark: 3. 3NT looks dire at the moment, and there may be too many top losers in five of a minor. If partner has anything extra, he should bid on.

Alan Shillitoe: 2. Other option 4, but that bypasses 3NT, and I have a feeling that could be our last making spot.

The book didn't mention anything about bidding three-card majors. These guys must be using a different textbook.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. The problem is when partner bids 3NT.

Solaris: 2. I want to be in 3NT. If partner bids 3NT then it's because partner has some spade values. Problem solved. If partner supports hearts, then I will convert to 5.

Andrew Gumperz: 2. Ugh. Unfortunately, game could be laydown opposite many hands that will pass 3.

Ron Lel: 2. Yuck! 2 is a horrible bid. The only other real alternative is 4, but this bypasses 3NT. This serves me right for playing a silly system; why is 2 not game forcing?

Despite the fact that 2/1 Game Force is the One True Perfect System, the player who held these cards was playing one of the silly inferior systems at the time. I'm sure she felt like a right fool, but if everybody played the perfect system then we wouldn't have bidding problems!

Fraser Rew: 2. Want to try to convince partner to declare 3NT, as it may play better from his side.

Gerben Dirksen: 2. Quickly and confidently, although that is not what I am...

The April edition of Australian Bridge contains an article by Sartaj Hans, in which he advocates the imaginative use of three card major suits. He declined the chance to apply the technique on this hand, though:

Sartaj Hans: 3NT. Everything is a guess. I take the guess with the biggest upside.

That idea is also examined in the same article. Sartaj calls it the Heisenberg Principle, or the Principle Of Uncertainty. In short, the theory is that if none of the roads are certain to lead to victory, then you may as well choose the road that makes the trip worthwhile.

Gareth Birdsall: 3. If I get to play 3 it may be the right spot.

Damo Nair: 3. Doesn't matter that it is not forcing. If partner has a gameworthy hand he'll take another call.

David Hester: 3. Yes, I know it isn't forcing, but I can't go past 3NT when I'm not sure I can make 5. He is more likely to have major stoppers than to cover four of my six losers.

Nathan Crafti: 3. Good Lord, who has the majors? Any bid that bypasses 3NT is stupid but I can't bid it. If partner has them stopped, she might bid it. Silly problem really.

The opponents only have 15 points between them, so it's not surprising they haven't bid their majors. And of course there's no reason why partner can't have the majors, say

	8642
	A753
	AKQ42
	---

Eric Leong: 3. A little too good but most descriptive. The other bids are far worse and very misdescriptive.

Peter Robinson: 3. Reverting to my suit when partner has rebid his own is always encouraging, especially when it raises the level. Admittedly, it doesn't promise this playing strength, but nothing else does, and 3NT could be off the top even if we hold theoretical guards in both majors.

Jerry C: 3. Fairly descriptive though not forcing and doesn't distort. No game is assured.

Finally, some imaginative choices that could work out well at the table, but are a little too offbeat to score well in a bidding forum:

Manuel Paulo: 3. A splinter bid, agreeing diamonds; but if partner cuebids hearts - with, for instance, xxxx Axx AKQxx x - I intend to bid the safer club slam (consider a club lead against 6).

John Smith: 3. I disagree that 3 should be not forcing. A rebid at the two should not but at the 3-level it should be forcing.

The answer to this next problem depends on how you would interpret the following auction:

West	North	East	South
4	pass	pass	dbl
pass	5	pass	5

The readers are divided on this issue, and that has scared many away from the winning answer.

Peter Robinson: 5. Whether Michaels or general force, I'm content. Double would surely beget 5, when my 5 would suggest quite a different hand type.

David Hester: 4. This may go down with 6 on, but any attempt at a takeout may run foul of clubs. At least I can bid 5 now over 5.

Eric Leong: 4. No way else to get to your most probable game unless you are dying to find out what to do over a 5 response to a takeout double.

Fraser Rew: 4. Want to double, but partner will probably bid 5, and then 5 would sound like a cue. Likely misfit so game is enough, I hope. If doubled will run to 5.

Alan Shillitoe: 4. Double will not be passed, and we know where partner will choose to play. Might have passed at favourable and collected 100s.

A useful guide in these situations is that the higher the level, the greater the need to keep your doubles flexible. A double of 1 will have a more "classic" shape than a double of 4, because over 1 you have other options with an off-shape hand. Therefore partner should probably recognise that this sequence shows an off-shape double.

Andrew Gordon: Dbl. See what happens next. Probably 5 from partner, then 5 from me. Partner should know I have spades.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Will correct 5 to 5. Or happy to play 4 doubled.

Gerben Dirksen: Dbl. And correct 5 to 5.

Ian Patterson: Dbl. Then 5 over 5, and 5 after 4.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Over the likely club advance, I'll bid diamonds, showing a strong two-suiter.

Jerry C: Dbl. At least if pard bids 4 or 5 slam is a reasonable gamble. If partner passes should be OK. If partner bids 5, let's hope my 5 bid leads to a playable contract.

Ron Lel: Dbl. I think the problem comes on the next round. This is a fantastic hand for "meta overcalls" where 5 shows diamonds and spades.

I haven't come across meta-overcalls before, but given the reaction to our recent use of "leaping Michaels", it's probably best that we don't get too experimental right now.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Hopefully penalties will outweigh the possibility of a spade game. If partner has four spades he might bid them and would be happy with that if we can make an overtrick.

Joe Barda: Dbl. My hand will produce game with very little help from partner.

In addition to the takeout double, there were also some votes for the other members of the takeout family:

Mark: 5. This should be Michaels. Only need a spade or diamond king to make six cold.

Nathan Crafti: 4NT. Tempted to bid 5 but I forgot my vegemite this morning. Unless West is a complete lunatic he must have eight hearts and I am apprehensive that if he is on lead he might get a first round ruff. So hopefully pard can bid a pointy suit and East will be on lead. If pard bids clubs I will have to punt 6NT.

Martin Eggins: 4NT. A Ron Klinger tool for bidding two-suiters over a high level preempt. If partner bids 5, I correct to 5. Partner can then correct to 5. I'm stopping at the five level in case East can ruff a heart lead.

Klinger would be proud, Martin:

Ron Klinger: 4NT. When I remove 5 to 5, this will be a slam invitation in diamonds or spades. To bid 5 and insist on slam is not a bad gamble, but with the right cards in the right suits partner should be able to bid slam after the invitational sequence.

Finally, there a couple of votes for just keeping it simple.

Gareth Birdsall: 4. Just trying to go plus is tough enough for me.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. Try to get a plus.

It could be argued that the best way to go plus is to play in the right suit. Next question: will East be silly enough to double 4 on the following layout?

ª 82 © 7 ¨ KJ93 § T76532 ª 6 © QJT98765 ¨ 54 § K4 ª KT942 © 3 ¨ T8 § AQJ98 ª AQJ53 © AK4 ¨ AQ762 § ---

This is the first of two problems this month to feature 13 different answers. All but one of the bids from 4NT to 6NT are represented, as well as Pass and 7NT.

The simplest approach is to pick a trump suit and bid what we think we can make:

Alan Shillitoe: 6. Eminently practical. Partner could have tried 3NT with a total bust, so this is a sensible shot.

Fraser Rew: 6. 4 seems to be a suit rather than a cue, as does 4 - so will play him for a diamond void, spade queen, and club king. May try 6NT at matchpoints.

Fred Altstock: 6. Can't see any other bid.

John Smith: 6. Is 2 a game force? How good can 2 be? Is 3 forcing?

Hang on, I'm supposed to be asking the questions here! But since you asked, the answers are yes, not very, and yes. More information is available on our system page here.

Peter Robinson: 6. A mark-time bid (perhaps 4NT or 5) would be a mistake, as partner may simply repeat his clubs because he's run out of breath. With a spade guard, he wouldn't bypass 3NT unless strongly suit-oriented; nor would he bid clubs first unless much better than his spades; neither would he conceal secondary diamond support to introduce his feeble spade suit at the 4-level. More likely he is void in diamonds and searching for a fit. Let's help him.

If your card play isn't very good, it's probably best to stay out of slam:

Jerry C: 5. If only 4NT offered a minor choice. 4 should be unplayable as pard could have bid 3 in an effort to get to 3NT with a decent suit.

Damo Nair: 5. May be the limit of the hand.

But if partner is playing the hand, feel free to take a few liberties:

David Hester: 6. To bid like this without A+K he must have lots of shape, but I expect one black loser. He is not cuebidding a void when he hasn't got diamonds.

Richard Willey: 5. Not giving up on the grand.

Gareth Birdsall: 5. I'd worry about introducing spades at the 4 level on as little as Qxxx, so raising spades seems reasonable.

Ian Patterson: 5. partner is 2-suited in the blacks, 6 may make if diamonds can be set up.

One of the reasons I love this feature is that I always look forward to seeing the many different interpretations of 4 bids and 4NT bids. You've disappointed me this time, though, with only two different meanings:

Gerben Dirksen: 4NT. Natural. I have nothing more to show.

Ron Lel: 6. Partner must have a pretty decent hand to bid this way. If 4NT were forcing and not interpreted as Blackwood by CHO, that would be my choice.

Andrew Gordon: 4NT. Partner could easily have club king, spade queen, or both. I fear a diamond loser.

Manuel Paulo: 4NT. Assuming that partner covers my black losers - with, for example, x xxxx Qx Kxxxxx - 4NT is a prepared bid, to ask for the diamond queen.

Manuel has taken 4 to be a cue, which I guess is a valid interpretation. The truth is, nobody really knows what 4 means. That is why the top scores go to the bids that leave the last guess to partner:

Zbych: 5. Asking partner to choose between 6 and 6. With club king and diamond queen he can bid 7.

Fonlladosa: 5. Choose your slam!

Nigel Guthrie: 5. My turn to make an incomprehensible bid.

Incomprehensible yes, but this bid has been promoted because it does at least let partner choose the strain. A more conventional way of doing this is:

Andrew Gumperz: 5NT. Pick a slam.

Mark: 5NT. Pick a slam. Probably 6NT, but could be 7NT.

Eric Leong: 5NT. Pick a slam. Partner can't be doing all this bidding without having a little something.

Sartaj Hans: 5NT. Pick-a-slam.

Finally, let's hear from four people whom I'd love to see at a table together one day:

Joe Barda: Pass. I don't see any prospect of slam and 5 is risky.

Duncan Roe: 6NT. Should make with two of the key cards from partner (diamond queen, spade queen, heart king, club king).

Martin Eggins: Pass. Looks like a weak 5206 with partner seeking three card support. Found it! Strong possibility of a club loser and spade loser. Opponents' failure to bid 2 suggests partner has two hearts and therefore no diamonds.

Nathan Crafti: 6NT. After such an ugly auction, I have no room left to seek the information I really need. So I am just going to have to make an (un)educated guess.

On the surface, this problem seems the same as Problem Two, where we had to decide between the right suit or the right level. There are two big differences though: this hand is much stronger, and the threat of being tapped is much greater. At least half of the following players are about to go down on a club lead:

Joe Barda: 4NT. I only need one ace for slam.

Fred Altstock: 4. Game in either hearts or spades should be on.

Ian Patterson: 4. Then 5 if given another bite.

Jerry C: 4. Nice hand for Ripstra (4 = major takeout with diamond fragment).

The next group of readers believe that a second double would be takeout. I'm not so sure about this, but they do have a lot of supporters.

Andrew Gordon: Dbl. Let us see what partner has.

Damo Nair: Dbl. Better bid something (hoping?!) partner!

Fraser Rew: Dbl. LHO may be having a lurk but it looks as if partner has some clubs. So his passing is alright, otherwise don't mind what he bids.

John Smith: Dbl. Of course this is still takeout.

Sartaj Hans: Dbl. For takeout.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Near-perfect takeout.

The double has been given an award of 80 points, which seems remarkably generous to me. Even if it really is for takeout, partner will surely pass with a normal hand like

	764
	A3
	J742
	T954

swapping 650 (at least) for 500. Add a four card major to that hand (or even a 5th club, leaving West with a singleton and preventing a club force), and now we are odds on to make slam.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Partner may have a red ace, but it's unlikely (s)he has both. I'll bid 4 over 4, showing a major two-suiter; I'll try slam over 4; on the other hand, I'll pass 4 or 5, being afraid of an early heart ruff.

Gareth Birdsall: Dbl. 5 is possible, but if partner has only three cards in a major we could be forced nastily. I'll hope to go plus again by doubling for takeout.

Nathan Crafti: Dbl. Sometimes I scratch my head and say: "What's the problem?" In this case I can see the problem but can only see one possible answer. If pard can leave the double in for penalties I expect to pick up at least 800 and perhaps 1400. Otherwise we get 680 or 1430.

1400 seems a long way off. The way the auction has gone, it's likely that the opponents can cash seven clubs, as well as whatever red aces they have. If they have no red aces, then we will get a penalty of 800 - but we will also have 13 top tricks in either major! Therefore the top award goes to:

Peter Robinson: 5. Suggests both my hand type and quality. May well punt the slam if he chooses a major. Double would be more card-showing and penalty-oriented - it would almost certainly be passed if partner has no good suit of his own.

Alan Shillitoe: 5. At least try to get some slam interest into this auction.

Eric Leong: 5. Partner is marked with at least one red ace since if the opponents had both the red aces they would have sat for 3NTx.

David Hester: 5. With two aces West would probably have passed, so I think North has one or two. If I tell him we can make five of his best suit, I would hope he will go up one extra level per ace.

Martin Eggins: 5. Michaels cue bid (for majors). 4 bid might work, but giving partner two options is much safer, even if it means going to the five level.

Nigel Guthrie: 5. Five of a major is probably only one off.

Richard Willey: 5. Need to let partner in on the joke.

Ron Lel: 5. Hoping the 5-level will be safe if partner has nothing.

Mark: 5. Can I have my double of 3NT back again? Dreadful bid. 4 should show this hand, as a strong cue-bid. But now 5 is the least of evils.

The double of 3NT certainly seems pointless, but several top Australian players have expressed support for it. When this hand came up at the table, the players had not discussed this sequence. If you aren't already playing Ripstra or Aspro in this position, now is the time to discuss it.

Here's an opportunity for you to sacrifice some bidding forum points for a chance to express your creativity. First, let's get the boring, pedestrian, unimaginative, high-scoring votes out of the way.

Andrew Gumperz: 5. I'll bid what I think I can make.

Damo Nair: 5. More than enough. I have two kings behind the doubler.

Fred Altstock: 5. Game in diamonds looks certain.

Gareth Birdsall: 5. They may not bid over 5, so that's the bid for me.

Nathan Crafti: 5. Unless partner doubles, I will bid 6 over 5, 7 over 6, and 8 over 7 if necessary.

If you're planning to bid 8, isn't it better to do it on the first round? That way the opponents will be more likely to try 8, and we can surely beat that.

Ian Patterson: 5. To keep them from finding the strength of their spade fit.

Joe Barda: 5. I want to stop communications.

Martin Eggins: 5. I'd bid 6 if not vulnerable but my kings could prevent their spade slam from making.

All the more reason to push them into it:

Peter Robinson: 6. The level I'm prepared to defend. Partner may have a spade trick at this vulnerability, but three defensive tricks are too uncertain when the opening lead may provide a ruff-discard.

Ron Lel: 6. I will probably have to bid this at some stage anyway, so I may as well bid it now. Will pass 6 as we have some defence in the two rounded kings. If we were playing fit showing jumps, I would bid 4.

Eric Leong: 6. Who knows? Could be a good sacrifice against a spade game, a possible set against 6, or a lucky 6 make.

Manuel Paulo: 6. A spade lead-directing bid is rather appealing, but I want to increase the preemptive pressure.

Fraser Rew: 6. Would consider a psychic 3 at the table. However partner is likely to have four of them (or, if not, four clubs) so this may lead to tears. Will bid one too many - I think they can make 5 or 6, but not 6 or 7. Should be cheap(ish).

A more strategic approach:

Zbych: 4. Tactical underbid. Opponents can probably make eleven tricks in spades, so let them start at the four level. Then I will bid 5, and then 6 if necessary. By then they might let me play there.

One player feels that the auction is starting to get a little out of hand:

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. This is not much better than 6 points.

That's true, it's usually a good idea to have about 15 points to respond to a preempt. You can generally add a few points when you have trump support, but you don't want to get carried away...

Going for the bigger score:

Duncan Roe: Rdbl. We should make 5.

If we can make 5, then 3xx should score at least 1640. I hope they let us play here.

Gerben Dirksen: 4. Preparing the ground for when they bid 5.

Not content with being allowed to bid a three card suit on Problem One, here are another four people I'd like to see at a table together:

Alan Shillitoe: 3. Take your pick of which psych you want to have a go at. But beware, partner has probably got a defensive card on this auction, so don't end up taking phantoms!

Andrew Gordon: 3. This will throw a spanner in the works. Prepared to bid up to 6 later.

Fonlladosa: 3. Maybe they'll play this in hearts!

Mark: 3. And hope you get away with it. I'll bid 6 if it gets whacked.

Let's finish off with some lead-directing bids:

Jerry C: 5. My guess as the best lead director. Must bid higher than 4 and I don't want a diamond lead. Fairly safe since diamonds outrank clubs.

Richard Willey: 4. Lead directing. If the jump is defined as fit showing, then I bid 5.

Frank Stewart: 3. To direct a lead and stop partner from giving up a ruff and sluff at trick one.

Help, I have to pick a suit to lead against 6 and my partners are trying to confuse me! Oh well, if they can't make up their mind which suit they want, I guess I'll just have to lead a diamond!