Readers' Bidding Forum

The following comments were received from the readers of Australia's national bridge magazine, Australian Bridge, and other bridge enthusiasts. The same problems are also discussed in the magazine, by an international panel including Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence and Ron Klinger.

Scroll down for final scores

Hand One - East deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AQJ753
	943
	K9
	A9

West	North	East	South
		1	1
4	pass	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	63	53
4	80	21	39
Double	30	16	8

We've had a record response this month, with some very long answers, so let me apologise in advance to anyone whose answers have been cut up into bite sized pieces. Hopefully I've kept your meaning, if not your actual words.

We start with the most fundamental of bidding problems: to bid or not to bid.

Jameson Cole: 4. Automatic at IMPs. Partner's hand could be minimal, with 4 making on as little as xxx x xxxx xxxxx, if RHO has K and A. If partner has any help at all, game is easy.

Bill Bennett: 4. To bid is dangerous, but so is to pass. Reasonable chance of success, disaster unlikely, and 4 might make.

Manuel Paulo: 4. On a good day, I can set 4, but on a better day, I can win 4 even though partner has a Yarborough.

Joan d'Entremont: 4. Partner must have a void or singleton in hearts, but could have K and two small spades which would limit loss to two or three.

Ron Lel: 4. Hard. I realise I could go for a number here. Would double if K was the ace.

Sam Arber: 4. Even with right cards partner cannot bid 4 opposite our 1 overcall. If we can defeat 4 then we'll make 4. Too much downside to pass.

Zbych Bednarek and Sid Reynolds: 4. Partner has short hearts with 3+ support, and at least one key value (A, K, K).

Eric Leong: 4. If West is showing some shape for his bid, he is probably short in spades so I would guess partner has a few spades and the spade hook is on if necessary. Give partner something minimal like xxx-x-Axxx-xxxxx and 4 has a decent play.

Tim Trahair: 4. West's jump puts pressure on us, particularly vulnerable. Probably East has A so we may just make.

Vince Davies: 4. Difficult choice. The total trick count might well be 20. I am gambling on EW having ten hearts and enough strength to get home. If so we stand a 75% chance of game and a 25% chance of one down. Two down is not all that bad. There is also the possibility of EW bidding 5 and going off.

Bidding 4 is very unilateral, so at first glance it seems sensible to give partner an "out":

Paul Tranmer: Dbl. Far too strong to sell out to 4. I have hard defensive values so if partner decides to defend, that's fine by me. If I find partner with three small spades, a singleton heart and one top card in the minors I'll have good play for 4.

David Hester: Dbl. Of course, I may be offering partner a choice of disasters.

Nathan Crafti: Dbl. If I was any good at this game I might get these decisions right occasionally. If I pass, 4 will romp in. If I double, pard will pass and 4 will roll in with overtricks. If bid 4, it will go off when 4 didn't have a prayer. So I make the decision that passes the buck to pard and gives me a chance in the post mortem.

Marshall Lewis: Dbl. Pass is out of the question. 4 seems insufferably unilateral, though likely to prove right. Double is flexible, but the reality is that partner will often choose a losing action, because our hand has less defense than one normally holds for this sequence. But even so I Double, in keeping with one of Lewis' Laws for tiebreakers: look beyond the individual deal and select the action that will do least damage to partnership harmony if it goes wrong. (Cynics might translate this as: "select the action that does least to forfeit the postmortem".)

Marshall's comment about lack of defence is spot on, and so (post mortem issues notwithstanding) the Double has been demoted in the scoring.

Top score goes to the people with the plus score.

Peter Robinson: Pass. The silence of partner with a known heart shortage suggests defence. I'll be happy with a plus. It's actually a better lead problem, I think.

John R Mayne: Pass. Partner isn't void in hearts; he would have moved. Plus 50 is fine.

Fred Altstock: Pass. Not going anywhere on my own. Maybe we can defeat 4.

Denis Haynes: Pass. Nowhere to go, concentrate on defending 4.

Fraser Rew: Pass. I hate selling out to 4 with spades, but my flat shape, potential defensive tricks and partner's silence suggest defending is the long-term winner.

Alexander Cook: Pass. You have already described your hand; don't bid it twice.

Andrew Gordon: Pass. Partner has a singleton heart and still cannot find a bid. Vulnerability is unfavourable, so a sacrifice could be expensive.

Terry Dunne: Pass. I’m far too weak to rebid spades. Partner, with at most one heart, couldn’t make a takeout double. I can’t double for takeout as we will almost certainly end up playing at the 5-level in at best a 5-2 fit and only about half the points.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. 4 is attractive but dangerous and unilateral; double will almost certainly get a minor response.

I hope partner would go out of his way to bid 4 here. A minor response should be used only in an emergency.

Richard Bowdery: Pass. The little old biddies I play against always bid 4 with this type of hand, to great effect, not for me though. Double is close, if partner will guess to pass with a decent hand and bid 4 otherwise. Bit too cute for me.

Robin Cross: Pass. Meckwell plays that 1M-4M could be a weak NT type with 3+ major support. A recent result was a 5 bid going for 800 or so vs their game. I adopted this style so bidding 4 here against me might find xx in dummy and not the 'obvious' void.

Thanks for the warning. Or is this a double bluff to scare us out of bidding against you?

Vic Liersch: Pass. Concede game; they are not going to slam and might still go down. Double could just give them more, especially if one has a spade void. Any other bid doubled two down is worse off.

Ken Berry: Pass. Too frightened by vul to bid 4. 4 might go down. (Does this make me an optimist or pessimist or just mist?)

Just mist, but you're in good company. On the actual deal, from a European tournament a few years ago, bidding 4 was right in the sense that 4 was a good save. But it achieved very little, because the opponents had an easy 5 bid:

	ª T64 © T ¨ 762 § KJ8752
ª --- © 8765 ¨ AQJ853 § QT3		ª K982 © AKQJ2 ¨ T4 § 64
	ª AQJ753 © 943 ¨ K9 § A9

Hand Two - South deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AQJ3
	QJ76
	AJ
	Q42

West	North	East	South
			1NT
2¹	3²	pass	?

1. Natural.
2. Natural and forcing.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
4	100	48	31
4	80	42	51
4	70	5	1
3NT	10	5	9
4	0	0	4
4NT	0	0	4

Fraser Rew: 4. You're joking, right?

Comments like this are rarely accompanied by high-scoring bids, but this one sums up the problem perfectly. However, after a tough few weeks in Sydney, playing the Australian Nationals and the World Juniors, Fraser suffered a bit of a memory lapse and submitted a new set of answers:

Fraser Rew (one month later): 4. 4 goes off with 3NT making surprisingly often. It would be nice to know whether LHO has a bid showing hearts and a minor. I prefer 3NT here if he does (as this increases the likelihood of a heart lead, not a minor when pard has xxx or xx). I will assume there is no such bid available so will try the radical idea of raising partner's suit.

I'll pretend we never received the second answer. Let's go back to the obvious bid.

Eric Leong: 4. With superb trumps, slam is an excellent prospect if partner has a two suited hand and a stiff heart or a heart control.

Ken Berry: 4. Allows partner to control-bid 4.

Jameson Cole: 4. Implies big fit, slam interest, and denies a club control. Partner is now in control. If I hear 4 from partner, I'll still bid 4 to deny holding any additional useful feature.

Zbych Bednarek: 4. If I hear 4 from partner, my next step will be 5 slam invitation.

Steve Johnston: 4. Obliged to cue below game level.

David Hester: 4. I owe partner one slam try, and the control bid seems most helpful.

Paul Tranmer: 4. My likely wasted heart values are compensated by my doubleton diamond.

Peter Robinson: 4. Even with duplication in hearts, the rest of the hand will fit well enough to justify a try below game.

Bill Bennett: 4. Although the hearts are useless, the excellent spade support makes the control bid worthwhile.

In the August issue of Australian Bridge, Mike Lawrence's column discusses the difference between a 5-3 fit and a 5-4 fit. He argues that the value of the 4th trump can actually be a whole trick, or even more. So even if we devalue our heart honours on this hand, the 4th spade puts us well in the maximum range.

Marshall Lewis: 4. I basically have a strong notrump even outside hearts, including four great trumps. I can't even think of a BAD reason to refrain from making the honest call, let alone a good reason.

Richard Bowdery: 4. Partner wants to force to game with poor spades, must have a good hand. I don't have too much in hearts so time for a cue.

Vince Davies: 4. Showing slam interest in spades and first round control of diamonds but not clubs. If partner can bid 4 we are up and running. If not it is probably better for North rather than South to bid 4NT.

Sam Arber: 4. If we decide not to bid 3NT then may as well cue 4 on way to 4. Slam is still possible.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. 3NT may be safer but partner will never forgive me if we have a spade slam.

That's very true. Bob Jones was in your seat, and he hasn't forgiven partner for the actual 4 bid, let alone a selfish 3NT. Let's look at the 4 bidders, some of whom are entranced by the wasted heart values.

Sid Reynolds: 4. 9-card fit overrules 3NT. Not worth a 4 control bid with wasted values in hearts.

Ron Lel: 4. I know 3NT could be the right spot, but I can't suppress such good support. This hand is not good enough to cue 4.

Vic Liersch: 4. Pard already knows my hand and is in the position to make any further moves. If he invites I will accept. He has values outside spades; therefore RKCB would serve her/him well, if considering slam.

Terry Dunne: 4. We have a big trump fit and strength for game. It’s certainly possible that 3NT might play better than 4 but to make that call I’d like better club spots. The doubleton diamond also suggests 4 will play better than 3NT.

Alexander Cook: 4. 10 or 11 tricks seems easy, but partner is unlikely to have the perfect hand needed for 12 (Kxxxxx-x-KQx-AKx).

Why is this hand unlikely? I suppose by definition, any 15-count is unlikely because the average hand has only ten points. Does that mean we should never look for slams? Anyway, partner doesn't need nearly that much: the sixth spade and Q are extras. We can even do without K if partner has KQxx.

Sydney Frish: 4. Somehow it doesn't look right to go overboard – even if my NT is close to the top of the range.

Andrew Gordon: 4. Partner will like my hand. Partner can cue or ace ask.

Missing the AQJ of trumps? You'll need a pretty aggressive partner. If you think partner will like your hand, tell him.

Nathan Crafti: 4. Curse West. If only I could have super accepted. Hopefully, pard will be strong enough to ask me for keycards.

Herbert C Wilton: 4. Silly to go down in 3NT with 4 on. Of course we can always construct hands.

That's true, we can always construct hands. Which leads us nicely into the minority vote:

Manuel Paulo: 3NT. Consider this example, where partner can't win 4 with a heart lead, and I win 3NT with any lead.

KTxxx
xx
Kxx
Axx

x
AKTxxx
Qxx
KJx xxx
x
xxxxx
xxxx

AQJx
QJxx
AJ
Qxx

Frank Campbell: 3NT. My heart stoppers are OK and partner must have minor strength to justify his bid. If he has a spade stack he can rebid spades but nine tricks could be easier.

John Leenders: 3NT. East might get a ruff with a heart lead, this might be the better score.

John R Mayne: 3NT. Even with a 5-4, notrump figures to be safer here.

Robin Cross: 3NT. If partner shows another suit, I can support spades with AQJx.

I have some sympathy with those who feel AQJx is only good enough for second round preference. I've partnered some lousy declarers myself. You're still not getting the 100 points though.

Hand Three - East deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	432
	AKQ42
	T97
	T2

West	North	East	South
		pass	pass
pass	1	pass	1
pass	1	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
2	100	63	9
2	70	21	44
3	30	11	8
2	10	5	12
1NT	10	0	17
Pass	10	0	5
3	0	0	4
2	0	0	1

Partner has bid two suits, and has declined to support our suit. Isn't this what they call simple preference?

Manuel Paulo: 2. I show my preference between partner's two suits.

John R Mayne: 2. Must take another call, and 1NT is wrong-siding.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. There is a very slight case for passing 1 but partner could have passed 1 with a flat minimum. If partner has three hearts, he will support later.

Tim Trahair: 2. Can North do something more? If so there may be a game in NT or even hearts if he has three card support and now shows it.

David Hester: 2. Lack of points in partner's suits suggests caution.

Eric Leong: 2. Too good to pass, so give partner another chance to bid again if he has a stronger than minimum hand.

63% of the experts were happy to simply give preference, but the readers were a bit more aggressive.

Nathan Crafti: 3. Pard knows that I'm a passed hand. Now I'll tell him that I'm a good passed hand with diamond support. Anyone who repeats hearts is just a hand-hog.

Ron Lel: 3. Partner's bidding has shown an unbalanced hand with diamonds and spades, and should not be 4-4 (rebid 1NT). This hand is a bit too good for a simple preference to 2. 3 may be a tad of an overbid, but I prefer this to the Caspar Milquetoast 2 bid.

Sid Reynolds: 3. Assuming 1 shows an unbalanced hand.

Sydney Frish: 3. Hearts are nice, but jump in diamonds should help partner to decide where to play.

Craig Taberner: 3. No fourth suit forcing by a passed hand.

I confess that I have no idea whether FSF applies to a passed hand. In my partnerships, we pass so rarely that the issue has never come up. Here are the fourth suit bidders:

Richard Bowdery: 2. If ever I was worth fourth suit as a passed hand this is it. Never going to bid 1NT with this collection, too good for 2, 2 doesn't get the job done.

Ken Berry: 2. Making one last positive step. Hope this is just a one round force only. Will respond 2 if get the chance later.

Zbych Bednarek: 2. 4th suit with passed hand – good heart suit. Who knows, even 3NT is possible.

Paul Tranmer: 2. 4th suit forcing. I'm just too good to limit the hand by bidding anything else.

Well, one way or another, we have shown partner our trump support. So now we can move on to the next problem. But first, a short message from the hand hogs:

Sam Arber: 3. Did not open so cannot have six hearts, must be max with solid 5 card heart suit. Partner appears to be short in hearts as did not bid NT at any time. Other bid is 3 but may miss 3NT.

Vince Davies: 3. North opened 1 fourth in hand, and opps failed to open or overcall, suggesting North has reasonable strength. 3NT or 4 is more likely to succeed than 4 or 5. South is a passed hand and 3 shows a good heart suit and poor clubs. The only alternative might be 3.

Marshall Lewis: 2. A bit crass, but this is IMPs and we could have a game, and this seems the likeliest call to allow us to bid it intelligently (apologies to Webster's).

Fraser Rew: 2. I should have a sixth here but everything is looking pretty flawed so I make the smallest lie.

Fraser Rew (2nd attempt): 2. Haven't we had this problem before? Looks awfully familiar.

You've got to hand it to these youngsters. They never forget a hand, even after a whole month.

Herbert C Wilton: 2. Not perfect, but it's where I live.

Jameson Cole: 2. Why not? Hearts are what I have and a rebid shows a good suit with limited values.

Fred Altstock: 2. Showing five hearts. Partner could have three. Can't see game on.

As Nigel and Tim pointed out, if partner has three hearts he will bid them over 2.

Frank Campbell: 2. Not thrilled with it but it is a solid suit and I am equally unexcited about supporting either of partner's suits at this stage. Prefer to see if he bids again.

Peter Robinson: 2. If partner happens to have the dreaded shortage in hearts, the suit could still be the best trump suit. Partner's long side suit can force out the defence's long trump and establish five trump tricks in hand.

Vic Liersch: 2. Shows preference for the suit without promising anything I haven't got.

Margaret Reid: 2. Describes my hand better than NT.

If there's one thing to be said for 2, it's that it describes the hand better than 1NT. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Would they?

Rex Fox: 1NT. Should produce 7 or 8 tricks opposite a minimum opening even if there is a 5-3 heart fit.

Denis Haynes: 1NT. Show point count and leave partner to bid again.

Terry Dunne: 1NT. One alternative is pass (possible because I’m a passed hand), but my heart suit could well provide five tricks in no trumps while not being as useful in a 4-3 spade fit – at some point the defence will ruff a heart and partner will have no way back to dummy to take the rest of the heart tricks. The other alternative is 2, although it’s not clear to me that hearts will play any better than notrumps.

While none of the panel actually bid 1NT, Eric Kokish and Marc Smith did happen to mention it in the "bids I would never make" category. I figure if two world class players took the time to reject it, it must be worth something, so I'm happy to upgrade the award to 10 points.

Hand Four - West deals, NS vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AJ876
	JT85
	A
	K94

West	North	East	South
1	pass	1NT	?

would be Michaels with five hearts and five spades.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	42	31
Double	80	32	30
2	70	16	13
2	70	10	26

Vic Liersch: 2. To get a preference without going too high. If partner prefers hearts I'll stop. If spades, game could be on.

John R Mayne: 2. I'll cheat by a card, though 2 has appeal for lead value.

Ron Lel: 2. Very poor methods. Why is this nonsense forced upon us? 2 here should just be a major oriented takeout, not necessarily a 5-5 shape. Other alternatives are pass and 2. Pass is wimpy as East has denied a 4 card major, and 2 is too unilateral. West may well have a four card spade suit here and we have missed our 4-4 heart fit.

Especially for Ron, I've compiled a set of problems which are all accompanied by conventional bids that perfectly describe the hand. If I get enough requests, we'll use that set in the October issue.

Sam Arber: 2. Lie about Michaels, seems more descriptive for this hand.

Eric Leong: 2. Game is possible make opposite a suitable 7-8 HCP hand from partner and revealing bidding by the opponents.

Of course 2 isn't the only way to show majors. But the fear of partner bidding diamonds scared many away from the takeout double:

Tim Trahair: 2. Reluctant to double as no doubt North will then bid two or more diamonds. Can bid hearts if the opportunity arises.

Vince Davies: 2. I think West has a club suit and partner has a diamond suit. I'll make life difficult for West and give partner a lead indication if West presses on to 3. If NS win the contract, it is best played by South.

Bill Bennett: 2. Better to have the lead come to me. Also Michaels might find us with a 4-3 heart fit, possibly at too high a level.

David Hester: 2. Aside from the missing heart, this hand is too strong for weak Michaels and too weak for strong.

Marshall Lewis: 2. If West is minimum and pard's share of the remainder are well situated (which is entirely consistent with the auction) then we can have a vul game perhaps no worse than a finesse. Such a game is far more likely to be in spades than anywhere else so that is the grenade I will lob into the fray.

A few optimists felt that partner should not expect diamonds for a takeout double:

Zbych Bednarek: Dbl. Should show interest in majors.

Craig Taberner: Dbl. Cannot be penalties, should be for majors (which East has denied).

Ken Berry: Dbl. Hoping not to hear 2 from partner.

However, the majority of doublers were not worried about partner bidding diamonds.

Sid Reynolds and Frank Campbell: Dbl. Don't want to miss hearts but will bid 2 over 2 if we get that far.

Sydney Frish: Dbl. Should partner bid diamonds, 2 will complete my shape.

Herbert C Wilton: Dbl. Take out of clubs, partner can leave in. At worst I'll have to correct 2 to 2. Still, could be a disaster!

Robin Cross: Dbl. If partner bids a major that's fine. If the big ox bids 2 I get to bid 2. Am I really bidding this way at IMPs? It just seems wrong to pass an auction where 1-1NT normally shows a club fit.

Andrew Gordon: Dbl. Difficult. If I use Michaels, opponents are bound to push diamonds at our 4-3 heart fit! If partner bids 2, I can bid 2. It seems likely that partner has something in the majors and a 2 bid will mean we have a 4-4 heart fit.

The expert panel was evenly split between bidding and passing, but the arguments for pass were strong, so the top score goes to:

Alexander Cook: Pass. Bidding is unwise here opposite a passed hand.

Margaret Reid: Pass. Good odds on defending with this hand.

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Let the opponents have 90, rather than 200.

Paul Tranmer: Pass. A little bit too dangerous to join the party at this stage. I'll wait for West's rebid and will then be better placed. If 1NT is passed out I'll be on lead to attack with a spade.

Jameson Cole: Pass. It's hard to imagine us missing a game with the opponents holding half the HCP. We have a fair chance of setting 1NT and going plus. Double with those anemic suits could be rather costly.

Nathan Crafti: Pass. Pard will balance with values won't she? If she doesn't I'm likely to be on lead so I don't need to make a lead director. 2 would be Michaels, would it? Strewth.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. Unless you play non-constructive "same level" rebids, double is too dangerous. Given our Michaels restrictions, 2 is the only other bid that is tempting.

Peter Robinson: Pass. If we agree that Michaels shows 5-5, we've agreed not to bid it on this hand. So the correct action is to pass and, if we don't like it, discuss the system after the session.

Rex Fox: Pass. More suited for defence, partner could still balance after two passes.

Richard Bowdery: Pass. Partner couldn't bid or double with short clubs and, most importantly, partner is still there and will surely act when it is right.

Fraser Rew: Pass. Another non-problem. When I show 5-5 I have – wait for it – 5-5.

Sorry Fraser, I can't resist doing this just one last time:

Fraser Rew II: 2. I hate passing here, also hate 2 with only 5-4 and doubling with an off-shape minimum. So as ugly as 2 is, it's the best option.

Having had a few laughs at his expense, now is a good time for me to point out that Fraser has moved into first place in the 2005 Readers' Race, with a total score of 1580. (And no, I didn't give him extra points for sending two sets of answers).

Hand Five - East deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.

	AKQJT85
	K7
	7
	KQ9

West	North	East	South
		1	dbl
2	3NT	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
4NT	100	33	31
5	100	17	1
4	60	23	32
5	50	17	1
6	20	5	10
6NT	20	5	5
4	20	0	6
4	10	0	7
Pass	10	0	7

Ron Lel: 4NT. Is 4NT quantitative or Blackwood? As AB Standard does not discuss this, I will bid what I play with my partner. For those who decide to bid 4 – what are you going to do over the likely 4NT? If you bid 5 will partner guess to bid six with two aces or seven with, (unlikely I know), three aces.

Ron says he'll bid what he plays with his partner. One of Australia's top players, complete with 45 pages of system notes, gave the same comment, adding "I assure you, my partner will definitely get this right". Unfortunately, partner didn't agree – now there are 46 pages of system notes.

David Hester: 4. Gerber, I presume (if not, please substitute the correct ace ask). There are about six aces in this pack; my best guess is that partner has A and a 1-loser diamond suit, but what does that leave East?

The "please substitute the correct ace ask" bid. A smart choice, but it'll never work at the table. As soon as AB Standard reaches 46 pages, I'll substitute a new answer for David – meanwhile, let's try to solve this problem with the information we have.

Part one – the scientists:

Herbert C Wilton: 4. My 4NT is no longer ace asking, so that's out. 5 would work if partner has A but not otherwise, so my plan is to bid 4 and then 5 which should get the message across to partner.

Richard Bowdery: 4. Mmm, curiouser and curiouser. I have 18HCP and a heart stop, in fact I was close to being able to bid 3NT on my own. Let's find out what partner's hand is all about. This auction could well get tortuous.

Rex Fox: 4. Cue bid asking for suits or controls, pard should have around 11-12 HCP min, most likely xx-AJx-AKxxxx-xx or similar. I wish 4NT was RCKB.

Part two – the bashers:

Zbych Bednarek: 6. 4NT would be quantitative. I hope today is my lucky day.

Paul Tranmer: 6. Could we be missing two aces? I suppose it's just possible as North's 3NT is based on a diamond suit but his hand shouldn't be just AKQJ10xx and Q10x!

Robin Cross: 6. Do I get to look at the backs of the cards before I bid 6?

Eric Leong: 6. Given that both opponents bid hearts, partner must be short in hearts so he must have the heart ace for his stopper. Also, for partner to gamble 3NT with a lack of HCP, he should have at least Axxxxx in some minor.

Terry Dunne: 6NT. The only way I can make sense of the bidding so far is that West has a spade void. Partner has a heart stopper and a running suit for his bid, otherwise there are about 50 HCP in the pack. There is no way I’ll stop below slam unless we are missing two aces, but I have no way to find out. If we can make slam, we will probably make as many tricks in no trumps as in spades, so I’ll close my eyes and bid 6NT.

Part three – the conservatives:

Manuel Paulo: 4. I'd like to check for aces, but I don't see how to do it.

Steve Johnston: 4. Hoping partner can cue a minor.

Fraser Rew: 4. Surely suggests this sort of hand – otherwise why pull 3NT?

Fraser and Steve make a good point, arguing that 4 is a slam try in itself. However, most of the 4 bidders are clearly not expecting cooperation from partner.

Michael Davy: 4. Someone's fibbing.

Vince Davies: 4. I would check to see if East was a regular in the psyche book. South's double might be a bare opener and North would need 13+ points and a heart stop for a genuine 3NT bid. This gives EW a total of 9 HCP and 8 or 9 hearts. If East is not psyching, North can't have many points and can't have many hearts so presumably has both minors (jack high!!). One ace in the North hand would be sheer luxury but still not enough for 6. I would bid 4 in the hope of a heart lead. A club ruff or two heart losers would be very unfortunate.

Frank Campbell: 4. Not sure what West and North are bidding on but prefer to believe pard has a heart stopper and probably length in diamonds. In any event I want to be in spades.

Barbara Whitmee: 4. Too much to hope North has two aces.

Bill Bennett: 4. With both opps bidding, it seems likely that North has only solid diamonds. He might make 3NT, but surely cannot have two aces. 4 looks safer, since the heart ace could be with West.

Alexander Cook: 4. It seems natural to remove to 4 here.

Sam Arber: 4. What has partner got, obviously long diamonds with A but likely to be missing two aces, unless East has psyched. Partner might have KQxxxxx diamonds and Qxx hearts and now 3NT may be going off with 4 making.

Part four – the ultra-conservatives:

Peter Robinson: Pass. Even allowing for West to have a shapely yarborough, I don't see how the others can have their bids. The most I place partner with is QTx and running diamonds. I can't assume he has two aces, and I see no way of finding out.

Marshall Lewis: Pass. Invitational 4NT would almost surely be a waste of time because partner is a virtual certainty to pass (no doubt gnashing many teeth while muttering sotto voce that once again the village idiot across the table has hung him for his highly commendable enterprise).

The clear majority agreed that 4NT would be non-forcing, not Blackwood. But 4NT still received more votes than any other individual choice, so the rules dictate that it gets the top score.

Nigel Guthrie: 4NT. I hope this is Blackwood.

John R Mayne: 4NT. Ace-asking, right? I don't think this sequence can mean otherwise, and we might have slam.

Tim Trahair: 4NT. An ace ask. This seems to be a very strange hand. Am assuming 3NT shows the minors and reasonable values. (No, 3NT shows only a desire to play in 3NT – BC). If he can show two aces – probably unlikely – slam is on. Otherwise likely to subside in 5 and hope for the best.

Sydney Frish: 4NT. Or punt with 6 – but I'd rather know that we are not two aces short.

Nathan Crafti: 4NT. Old fashioned bid called Blackwood which asks pard to tell you how many aces they hold. With three I count 13 top tricks; with two I count 12 and with fewer than two why has pard bid 3NT?

Jameson Cole: 4NT. I can't describe my hand. The only thing that makes sense is to bid 6 if partner has two aces. Failing that, we hope to sign off in 5 or 5NT.

Andrew Gordon: 4NT. Looking for slam. Partner probably has long diamonds and the heart ace. Has East psyched?

Vic Liersch: 4NT. Too many points in this deck. Partner's jump is a sign off but with two heart stoppers between us, I like slam.

Ken Berry: 4NT. What's going on? Who is overbidding? I hope it isn't me.

Sharing the top score, here is a cute little convention from the North American branch of the expert panel (and John Leenders):

John Leenders: 5. Three loser hand, looking for two aces.

Larry Cohen: 5. The obvious call. Jumps to 5 over 3NT are "Super Gerber," asking for aces. 4NT should be quantitative, not blackwood. Since 4 has to be forcing, I can't want to bid 5 natural. Any expert would take this as ace-asking ("he says hopefully").

Eddie Kantar: 5. Super Gerber. 4 would be forcing so 5 asks for aces.

Eric Kokish: 5. 4NT would be natural, 4 nonspecific. We need a bid for aces and 5 R Us, otherwise unnecessary as 4 is forcing. I would risk 4 and expect partner to do more with two aces, but in the history of this feature in AB, I've seen far worse hands double and then bid a new suit, so it's risky in Oz to settle for a sage 4.