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 of Andrew Robson, Larry Cohen, Mike Lawrence, Phillip Alder, Bob Jones, Marshall Miles, Frank Stewart, Eddie Kantar, Marc Smith, Eric Kokish and Zia Mahmood, as well as many top Australian players.

Scroll down to see the final scores
Submit answers for the April forum

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

	A743
	32
	KQT
	KQJT

West	North	East	South
	1	pass	1
pass	2	pass	3 *
pass	3	pass	3NT
dbl	pass	pass	?

is fourth suit, artificial game force.
A redouble now is natural, to play.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
5	100	57	44
4	90	5	0
4	80	19	15
4	80	5	0
4	60	0	10
Pass	40	14	18
Rdbl	30	0	13

Welcome to another year of exciting, challenging, frustrating, maddening problems. Our first exhibit forces us to go inside the mind of two of our opponents – the one on our left and the one opposite us. Is LHO kidding with this double? And if we run to 4, will CHO remember that we are in a game force auction?

Paul Tranmer: 4. Very glad we're in a game forcing sequence as I don't have to guess the best contract right now. West's double is based on long strong spades, the A, and a short heart holding, so 3NT will have no chance. Partner sounds like he has a modest 5-5 in the reds in which case 5 is our likely destination, particularly as it seems hearts are not going to behave for us.

Craig Taberner: 4. 3NT looks like going off. Will be embarrassing if 5 is cold and partner passes.

Steve Hurley: 4. I trust the doubler – looks like A and a solid heart suit after dummy's heart stop is cleared which means there is not nine tricks.

Rex Fox: 4. Could be a psychic double to induce an escape to 4/, but could be genuine based on good spades and a red ace. If partner opened on x-KQJxx-AJxxx-xx, he would find it difficult to find the right action if you pass.

This is obviously the right answer if we believe that partner will bid again. Some think it's even the right answer if partner passes.

Sydney Frish: 4. Of course West may be bluffing – but partner is marked with a weakish red two-suited hand. If 3NT could be beaten, then 5 is unlikely to make either.

The best thing about 4 is that if anything goes wrong from here, we're in a good position to blame partner – sorry, I mean we're in a good position to let partner make the right decision. As most people are unaccustomed to having partner make decisions, the majority goes for unilateral contract placement.

Ken Berry: 5. Is West sane, holding I guess KQJxx and a minor ace? Can't bid 4, have to be in game.

David Matthews: 5. Obviously West has solid spades and an outside ace. With North at least 5-5, 5 figures to be safer.

Sam Arber: 5. Presumably West has solid spades plus A so probably 3NT not making. Slam in diamonds still possible but 4 probably not forcing, so just bid 5. 6 may need heart finesse.

Jameson Cole: 5. At IMPs, you don't double the only contract you can beat. He can't know I have diamond support. This'll learn him!

H A de Jong: 5. I have a real problem with the 3NT bid. Would have bid 4 after which it would have been easy to get to the right contract. Now we are guessing.

Robin Cross: 5. West thinks he can beat 3NT with a spade lead. I trust him.

John Leenders: 5. Will West double again?

Nigel Guthrie: 5. If LHO is serious then a red suit game should have excellent chances. Perhaps you should trust LHO to have something like KQJTxx-Ax-Ax-xxx, leaving partner with say void-KQJxxx-Jxxxx-Ax. Would 4 ask partner to choose – I'm afraid not. So 5 seems the best guess.

There was one member of the magazine's expert panel on the same wavelength:

Ted Chadwick: 4. Partner will pass if I run to 4, so I'll tease him with 4.

Terry Dunne: 5. Presumably West has a good spade suit and an ace. Partner's shape and rebids suggest as little as 9 or 10 HCP, perhaps a hand like x-KQxxx-AJxxx-xx. An easy 5 while 3NT is two off.

Pietro Campanile: 5. Sounds like the double is based on chunky spades and an ace, probably in a minor. While 3NT might still be on, I think 5 will be a much safer spot.

Tim Andrews: 5. Partner has shown 5-5 in red suits and nothing in black. The diamond game might be a better bet.

It's not clear to me why everybody wants to go to the 5-level in an 8-card minor fit, when there is a perfectly reasonable major fit available at the 4-level. Maybe everyone is assuming that West is smart enough to have the hearts well held. Here's a couple of people who managed to find a direct route to the only making contract:

Martin Eggins: 4. Surely West is telegraphing very chunky spades plus A... and unfortunately probably a heart void. With decent intermediates partner has more of a chance of success here... especially if 2-6-5-0.

Tim Trahair: 4. Tough again. We have a lot of points between us but it looks as if West has long spades, perhaps 4+ clubs and probably the missing aces. Chance 4 although the better contract may be 5.

Finally there's a small group willing to bet that we have enough extras to stand and fight.

Frank Campbell: Pass. West is on lead with A and a top sequence in spades, but against this if I run to either of North's suits he should be prepared to double again. So maybe 3NT will make on diamonds and whichever major West does not have.

I think this is a really strong argument for Pass, especially since the conditions of contest specify that all players are experts. All the bidders are assuming that West has made a terrible mistake.

Alexander Cook: Pass. Is West bluffing? Is it possible that West has the ace of a minor and KQJxx of a major? Is West trying to scare you out of a cold 3NT into 4? I think I will pass rather than out-bluff West.

Fred Altstock: Pass. Martin Wilcox told me two opening hands are enough for game.

A smart man, Martin. Did he say anything about what it means when West doubles?

Nick Beaumont: Pass. "Always keep a-hold of Nurse, For fear of finding something worse." – Belloc

From a gruesome 19th century poem, where a child runs away from the nanny and gets eaten by a lion. But did you ever see "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle"? When the nanny turns on you with a deadly weapon, you run like hell!

Willem Willemse: Rdbl. Is the double only for penalties, or also lead directing? Partner promises an opening hand with 5-5 in the red suits. If there are no points in hearts, (s)he must have A and A. It's IMPs: I redouble.

The double is almost certainly lead directing. It says "I'm about to lead a spade partner, get ready to have some fun".

Jack B Nimble: Rdbl. West does not need a lead indicator being on lead. I would assume that West has strength in one of the majors plus a minor Ace to continue an attack after knocking out the major stopper. Take a gamble that I can score the first nine tricks.

Martyn Rew: Rdbl. Hard to see a big hole here. Partner must have his points somewhere useful.

David Hester: Rdbl. I think he has KQJT9 A and I think I have ten running tricks.

Dean Eidler: Rdbl. If West has good spades and A they are in for a surprise (five diamonds, four clubs and a spade).

Yeah, that's what I figured too:

98
KQ1098
AJ964
8

KQJ1062
AJ5
7
532
5
764
8532
A9764

A743
32
KQ10
KQJ10

West North East South

1 pass 1

pass 2 pass 3

pass 3 pass 3NT

dbl pass pass rdbl

4 all pass

Result: 7 tricks, NS +500

At the table I redoubled, on the grounds that North was overdue to give me a good dummy (maybe two minor suit aces). West must have felt the same way, because she ran to 4, which at least was a good save against the game made at the other table.

(Incidentally, the game made at the other table was 3NT by South. I didn't ask at the time, but if one of my teammates is reading this, how the... – no, on second thoughts I'm probably better off not knowing).

Hand Two - West deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.

	---
	AKT86
	K73
	AQT53

West	North	East	South
3	3	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3NT	100	62	42
4	80	9	12
4	70	29	20
4	20	0	8
4NT	20	0	3
4	20	0	9
6NT	20	0	3
Other	0	0	3

Isn't it amazing that in the year 2006, a minor suit preempt can still cause this much damage. A great argument for opening at the three level any time you have a six card suit!

Nick Beaumont: 3NT. Uncouth.

Pietro Campanile: 3NT. I hate this, but it might give us a chance if pard has an unlikely two suiter and not the seven spades to the KQ9 and 12-13 count that I dread. If I bid 4 there will be no way out below 6NT.

John Leenders: 3NT. I want to protect partner from a diamond lead and bid 3NT. If he corrects to 4 I am willing to bid on.

If we've already decided to bid on over 4, then shouldn't we have used the four-level to show one of our suits?

Denis Haynes: 3NT. Showing a stopper (?), points, and a dislike for spades.

Dean Eidler: 3NT. Bad breaks about so be conservative. Wish I had A so could hold up.

Paul Tranmer: 3NT. North will not just hold long strong spades but will have a few outside values and anything in hearts or clubs will be useful. My immediate concern is the diamond suit – if I can't find nine top tricks I'll be in trouble. Might we be missing a 4 contract? Possibly, but I don't believe it can be bid with any confidence.

Martin Eggins: 3NT. East's pass with most of remaining spades suggests that K and/or Q are in partner's hand. West might even try a non-diamond lead to try to get East on lead.

I've used Martin's comment to create the second example hand below. It didn't turn out to be a good argument for 3NT though.

Rex Fox: 3NT. Partner should have a 5-6 loser hand, something like: AQJxxx-xx-x-Kxxx as a min, should give a play for 3NT.

I wouldn't rule out making 6 with those cards, but I admit it could be tricky on bad breaks.

Robin Cross: 3NT. Partner should stop the spade suit. I have the other suits stopped.

Sam Arber: 3NT. Difficult problem, as partner must have three card support for one of your suits. 4 bid probably agrees spades and subsequent bids are cues, so settle for 3NT – HAMMAN'S RULE.

Sam, have you forgotten that Hamman's Rule has been banned from this column? And we're only two hands into the new year!

Sydney Frish: 3NT. And not surprised if partner bids 4.

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. Enough on what seems to be a foul misfit.

Representing the heart bidders, we have a new Rew. Now that we've lost Fraser Rew (last year's winner) to the expert panel, the family has sent a new representative for the Readers' Forum. No helping, Fraser...

Martyn Rew: 4. Too many gaps to fill to be happy in 3NT – important that partner does not expect any spades from dummy if he bids on.

Bill Bennett: 4. Too good to pass and there may be two or more spade losers. North should have something outside spades, hopefully in hearts, and it's good to have West on lead.

Fred Altstock: 4. Partner should have points and hoping he has at least three hearts.

Frank Campbell: 4. Can't bear to pass but won't bid NT with a void in partner's suit even if it renders K useless. Partner should be short and will have either a stack of spades or a fit in either of my suits. Will I bid 5 over 4, I don't know, I would rather have doubled!!

Nobody tried double. Given the difficulty of the problem, I would have been prepared to give it 40 points, on the grounds that if it is accepted you will be well-placed.

A few people have already planned what to do if partner corrects to spades:

H A de Jong: 4. Then 5 over 4.

Ken Berry: 4. Then 5 over 4 from partner?

Tania Black: 4. After partner bids 4 I will say 5.

Steve Hurley: 4. Arghh! The power of preempts. 4 then 5. Partner is likely short in diamonds and we likely have a fit in hearts or clubs. Without a fit, 3NT shouldn't make anyway.

A good plan, but since 4 is non-forcing, why not start with the clubs? This minority choice has been promoted to 80 points, because it's just so likely to work:

Craig Taberner: 4. Natural and forcing. Misses 3NT but slam is possible.

Jameson Cole: 4. The only way I can show both suits is to bid 4 and hope partner bids 4. With a little luck we'll find a fit and get to a makeable slam played from the right side to protect the K.

David Matthews: 4. If pard bids 4, I will leave it. He can always bid 4 as a waiting bid. Slam is unlikely with this misfit.

Alexander Cook: 4. 3NT is likely to be horrendous – how are you going to set up the spades? If partner had some hearts as well as spades he would have doubled or bid 4, so must have some clubs.

Tim Trahair: 4. 3NT seems too risky because there may be no entry to dummy. This bid alerts North to the fact that we need to look elsewhere.

This deal also produced a wide range of minority bids, starting with one of my favourite conventions: the Usual Notrump.

Kay O'Connor: 4NT. Hope partner thinks "That's unusual".

Not going to happen. You may get a useful keycard response though.

David Hester: 4. If this produces 4 I am no worse off than if I had bid it myself; and it might produce something else.

Tim Andrews: 4. Cue bid shows hearts and clubs with slam interest.

Wow, that's what I call optimism! I used to play a system where the cuebid showed whatever hand I was holding at the time, but for some reason my partner kept stuffing up the continuations.

Willem Willemse: 4. Partner must have a good opening hand. 10 HCP in spades is not enough. We probably end in 6NT.

Indeed, it's very likely this bid will get us to 6NT. Therefore we have upgraded the award for 4 to make it equal to 6NT.

Terry Dunne: 6NT. A free bid at the 3-level is significantly stronger than an opening bid, perhaps an ace more. In this sequence, this must show every important card outside the diamond suit.

Manuel Paulo: 6NT. Partner should have the heart and club complements, and a fine hand.

Finally, wherever you find a 6NT bidder, there is always someone else wanting to play a partscore. The pass won't get a great bidding forum score, but you never know – there may be a few imps in it if all the 3NT bidders go down.

William Striker: Pass. I am tempted by 3NT, but if partner has nothing but spades, at least I offer three tricks. Success here, depends on how many of the outstanding three diamonds partner has.

I wish I had the full deal for this problem, but I don't. Choose from one of these two which I made up. The first one is random, and the second one is based on the comment from Martin Eggins.

3NT=690
4H=650
6C=1370 KQ9852
Q5
A4
K96

743
2
QJ109652
74
AJ106
J9743
8
J82

---
AK1086
K73
AQ1053

3NT=-400
4H=680
6C=1370 KQ9852
QJ9
6
KJ6

743
4
AJ109542
84
AJ106
7532
Q8
972

---
AK1086
K73
AQ1053

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

	AK3
	AK4
	2
	JT8654

West	North	East	South
			1
pass	1	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
2	100	52	38
3	90	9	5
3	90	5	0
1	80	24	12
2	50	5	0
2	20	5	30
3	10	0	13
1NT	10	0	2

Everybody knows that a six card suit is rebiddable, so I guess it's not too surprising that so many readers fell into this little trap:

Willem Willemse: 2. For the moment not enthusiastic. Can reconsider if partner can bid 2 or 2, showing five hearts. Don't want to give false preference so soon.

gbgb: 2. If my pard is strong enough to enquire again, then it's game on. If not, we'll be happy in 2.

Jameson Cole: 2. My hand is only a QT better than average, with length but a bad suit. Game is not on unless partner can find another bid. If not, clubs will be fine and I have excellent defense if the opponents balance.

Tim Andrews: 2. Not such a good hand unless partner has five hearts or club support. Too early to force. Show shape.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. 2 is an underbid; 2 is attractive second but you don't usually want to ruff diamonds with hearts like this.

Pietro Campanile: 2. What else? Pard has a million forcing bids he can make if he has the 10 points I need for game.

The problem is partner won't bid with (he thinks) a misfitting ten points. And you don't need ten points anyway – a well-fitting seven could be enough.

Ken Berry: 2. Waiting for partner to tell me more, I hope.

David Hester: 2. After the adrenalin rush of Problem 2, I opt for calm. I hope he bids again but cannot force him to.

You can't force him, but you can be more encouraging. 2 is the least encouraging action we can take, and this hand is better than that. So, if you're too good for 2, how about this:

Tim Trahair: 3. Dreadful clubs but need to keep the bidding open. If North repeats hearts then game is on. If he bids 3 may be able to chance 3NT.

Terry Dunne: 3. Showing the length and strength of the hand, while still having the opportunity to show heart support next.

David Matthews: 3. A slight overbid but justified with the heart fit.

Paul Tranmer: 3. Much as I dislike making a jump rebid on a jack high suit I have to make some sort of noise to show a good hand. The big problem is that North could hold a 6-count and a 4-card heart suit, or a 14-count and 5-6 in the majors. Thus I must convey the power of my hand yet allow room for more description from the other side of the table. I think I'll be well placed over any rebid from North although I'll be nervous if 3 gets passed out!

Fred Altstock: 3. Nowhere else to go.

Craig Taberner: 3. The strength and shape are right. The suit is terrible. Two out of three ain't bad. This does seem like a problem hand specially designed for a 1 rebid, but I would not do this at the table.

At the table, you should always do what you think is right. If you screw up, you only have to face partner, and even if the bid is wrong it could still work out well. But in a bidding forum, where every bad bid is punished to the full extent of the scoring system, that's where you should be really nervous about bidding 3-card majors. If in doubt, you could always try using a pseudonym:

Jack B Nimble: 1. I want to force a bid from partner. It is unlikely that a 3 bid for a short trial would be understood in this system? I hope that either partner with a minimum will sign off at 1NT or give me a better indicator with those hearts.

Manuel Paulo: 1. Partner will raise if and only if he has four cards.

Frank Campbell: 1. Nothing is right but I need more info on partner's hand as low as possible. I will bid 2 over 1NT, raise hearts, pass 2 and jump any other hurdle when I come to it.

John Leenders: 1. 2 is too weak and 3 too strong. 1 keeps bidding going and if partner raises spades I return to hearts.

Craig was right, of course; this was a problem hand specially designed for a 1 rebid. But the majority found a much simpler way to encourage further bidding from partner – supporting his suit!

Sam Arber: 2. Underbid first, and if partner can't move we are unlikely to miss game.

Alexander Cook: 2. I would prefer to raise hearts than rebid the moth-eaten club suit. A raise to 3 would show four hearts.

Bill Bennett: 2. Not ideal, but better than 2 or 1.

Sydney Frish: 2. Good enough to pretend having 4-card support.

Dean Eidler: 2. Slight underbid especially playing strong NT (pard expects 12-14 bal) but 3 or 3 – yuk.

Denis Haynes: 2. If my partner has more than four hearts and/or more than 6 points then I expect another bid, otherwise happy at the 2 level.

Steve Hurley: 2. Partner can describe further to feel our way to the right contract.

William Striker: 2. OK, it is a 4-3 fit, but the hearts are good.

H A de Jong: 2. Need four trumps for a 3 splinter.

Pat O'Connor: 3. Seems familiar.

I guess the moral is "support with support". When you don't know what to do, you need to find an action that will make it easier for partner to help you out. Hence the low scores for the 2 and 3 rebids, which effectively make it impossible for partner to make any sensible decisions.

Hand Four - West deals, EW vul, Matchpoints. You are South.

	AK532
	Q64
	KQT
	Q5

West	North	East	South
2¹	pass	2²	?

1. Weak two in either major.
2. To play if opener has spades, requests partner to bid 3

with hearts.
Defence: North could have doubled 2

to show a weak notrump. South can double 2

for takeout of spades. Everything else is natural, including 3

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
2NT	100	71	20
Pass	80	19	65
Dbl	70	0	8
3	60	10	7

In the magazine, Larry Cohen predicted that this problem would be the most lopsided vote of the month. He was doubly right: the experts voted in a landslide for 2NT, and the readers voted in a landslide for Pass. I'm with the readers, who collect 800 against the experts' 400:

Pietro Campanile: Pass. My hand is not that good with the round suits values dragging it way down. Pass and wait sounds best.

Tim Trahair: Pass. The temptation is to bid 2NT showing the equivalent of at least a 1NT opening.

David Hester: Pass. If he has hearts, my stop is not good enough. He might have spades.

Bill Bennett: Pass. Any other bid could mislead partner.

John Leenders: Pass. I get another chance to bid so I pass. After 3 a 3 bid would show fewer spades then an immediate 3.

Paul Tranmer: Pass. It's North's pass of the 2 opening bid that makes me come down on the side of caution here. That and the fact that I still don't know what's going on round the table yet. If we end up defending 2 it may or may not go off – look how weak my spade pips are. If West corrects to 3, passed round to me, I'll now try 3. And if it goes 3-pass-4 I'll double as it'll need very little from North for 4 to go two or three off.

Paul is correct to take notice of North's first pass. The auction notes indicated that North would have doubled 2 with a weak notrump type of hand. So for us to make game, we need partner to have a maximum pass – with which he will happily reopen the bidding if we pass now.

Martin Eggins: Pass. If spades are 6025 then partner can make a takeout double next round. Passing also let's me assess whether partner or East has the balance of power.

Rex Fox: Pass. Not enough to bid 3, looks like a defensive hand. Let pard balance if need be.

Sam Arber: Pass. Happy to defend spades, or bid spades over 3.

David Matthews: Pass. I don't mind defending 2. I will balance if West bids 3.

Dean Eidler: Pass. Will bid 3 if 3 comes back to me and pass if 4 comes back.

Ken Berry: Pass. A lot of soft values... may bid 3 in passout? Am I lacking courage?

As long as you're planning to reopen over 3, I don't think anyone will accuse you of lacking courage.

Robin Cross: Pass. Preempts work sometimes.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. I am not in a hurry to bid.

Sydney Frish: Pass. This promises to be an interesting auction.

2NT, the expert majority vote, didn't get a lot of support from the readers. Here are the few who offered a comment:

Terry Dunne: 2NT. Showing the strength and stoppers all in one bid. 3 works great when partner has spade support but puts partner in an impossible position otherwise.

Steve Hurley: 2NT. The compromise.

Fred Altstock: 2NT. Hoping partner may have 9-10 points and we stay at the 2 level.

If I knew we were staying at the 2-level, I'd be even more keen to defend 2.

Frank Campbell: 2NT. East has a few hearts and maybe one quick trick. West could well have spades and I have a nice hand with a stop in both majors, so at the vulnerability 2NT it is.

At the vulnerability? If we bid 2NT and it's wrong, it's wrong at any vulnerability, while if it's right, the most we can get is 400. Meanwhile, the vulnerable opponents may be in trouble if they go off as much as one doubled undertrick.

Nigel Guthrie: 2NT. Descriptive. Passing is just as dangerous. Doubling is insane.

Personally, I don't see the danger in passing. Partner is sure to be short in West's suit (whatever that is), so if he has any values he will probably reopen (having already limited his hand by his first pass). So to take an aggressive position right now just seems unnecessary.

Alexander Cook: 3. It is important to show the spades before East-West bids hearts.

Tim Andrews: 3. West has hearts, but we are stronger and should be in the competition.

Craig Taberner: 3. Not without risk, but at matchpoints this is the practical bid.

Martyn Rew: Dbl. Expect further bidding to be 3 from West, all pass. Partner will hopefully be more comfortable leading from singleton spade.

Denis Haynes: Dbl. If West passes my partner may bid clubs which would force us into 3NT. This may be our contract.

This deal is from the Spring National final, although I changed the vulnerability and scoring method to make it a tougher problem (offering a penalty of 800 to the few who were smart enough to take it). At the table, it was actually NS who were vulnerable, at IMPs, so playing for penalties was less attractive and 2NT was the winning action.

	J6 AK93 875 K984
Q109874 J8 J42 A7		--- 10752 A963 J10632
	AK532 Q64 KQ10 Q5

West	North	East	South
	Marston		Thomson
2	pass	2	2NT
pass	3NT	all pass

Result: 9 tricks, NS +600

Hand Five - North deals, EW vul, IMPs. You are South.

	5
	AK98742
	QJT
	95

West	North	East	South
	3	3NT	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
Pass	100	57	47
4	70	38	32
Dbl	40	5	8
4	20	0	8
5	10	0	3
Other	0	0	2

Summing up the case for the majority:

Tim Andrews: Pass. EW probably have solid 4. We have a chance of defeating 3NT with hearts using the diamond entry.

David Hester: Pass. If partner has two or three hearts I might have seven tricks in defence; if not, I don't want to sacrifice.

Manuel Paulo: Pass. I hope to set this contract.

Willem Willemse: Pass. Who's got the spades? I don't want to wake them up with a double or 4/4. Hope to see three passes, lead the K to see the battlefield and play 9 if needed.

Alexander Cook: Pass. In tempo, of course. If you pass smoothly you will be able to cash the first seven heart tricks. Even if hearts don't run you will cash the remainder once you get in with the Q. East should have at least AKxxxx in diamonds. East surely would have overcalled with at least five spades.

If East had five spades and solid club stoppers, it wouldn't be unusual to choose 3NT. A 3 overcall would make it impossible to get to 3NT when it's right. So it's very easy for EW to miss a spade fit, so long as we stay out of their way.

Gary Lane: Pass. Keep them out of the spade fit.

Jack B Nimble: Pass. Interesting that East hasn't doubled first? I would assume a club control and lack of hearts make it difficult. The trick question is do I overlead or under the hearts?

Sydney Frish: Pass. Tempted to bid 4 – but that would ignore the implication of partner's pre-empt. Perhaps we can beat 3NT with the length in hearts and a side entry in diamonds.

Denis Haynes: Pass. Partner has few points and lots of clubs, I have potential entries in hearts and diamonds and two leads to my partners clubs. We have a chance of defeating the contract but I don't see a contract for us.

Sam Arber: Pass. If 3NT is making we have missed a good save.

Pietro Campanile: Pass. No point in helping them find their spade fit. The best chance of them going down in a game is 3NT.

William Striker: Pass. I could have got away with a heart bid at the three level, but not four.

Pat O'Connor: Pass. Lead a heart.

H A de Jong: Pass. Lead A. Hearts are 7222.

Nigel Guthrie: Pass. And lead a top heart. 3NT may go a lot down with 4 cold for opponents.

Dean Eidler: Pass. Perhaps I should bid as I don't know what to lead!

True, it's always a good idea to know what to lead before making that final pass. (Or in the case of Problem One, it's a good idea to know who is on lead). In fact, in this case we actually don't know yet who is on lead.

John Leenders: 4. The choice of lead is very difficult so I'd better bid 4.

Ken Berry: 4. I suspect West is about to bid 4, and I want a heart lead not a club.

Robin Cross: 4. Lead directing. Where are the spades? West should be bidding 4 here.

Jameson Cole: 4. Lead directing as I think the final contract will be spades. Passing 3NT is a risk, not bidding 4 is a greater risk, as partner may fit, and double could be a huge disaster.

Tim Trahair: 4. The other real alternative seems to be 4. Presumably West has a fistful of spades.

Martyn Rew: 4. Viable bid even if partner passed – any help at all from partner and it makes. Have to presume East is not suicidal.

There is a difference between East being suicidal, and East having a difficult problem over 3. The point of preempts is that they often cause the opponents (even the sane ones) to do the wrong thing.

David Matthews: 4. You are not going to deter me from bidding my good suit. Game may not make but I still think it's the right action. 3NT may well make.

Fred Altstock: 4. We might make or only go one off not vulnerable.

Nick Beaumont: 4. "Wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!" – Shakespeare

I have to admit, I can't quite interpret this quote (from Hamlet). Is South the intruding fool (Polonius), about to be punished for his intrusion? So East is Claudius, initially in trouble but now allowed to escape as Polonius takes the fall. Personally, I think the quote about the nurse is more appropriate for this problem.

Finally, the four minority options:

Bill Bennett: 4. Expect East to have a quick entry and a suit to run. He may make nine tricks. Best to support clubs since North may otherwise take no trick.

Rex Fox: 4. East might have a running spade suit and a club stop, so 4 doubled shouldn't cost too much.

Barb Whitmee: 5. A sacrifice, making it difficult for West to call the spades.

Martin Eggins: 5. This leaves partner in no doubt as to a lead if West dares go 5.

Paul Tranmer: Dbl. This is an attempt to muddy the waters a bit, because 3NT is surely never going to be the final contract when EW have at least a nine card spade fit and West will hold at most one club. So, after they "escape" to 4 I'll then bid 5 and expect to go for 500 against 620 or, better still, defend 5 and beat it.

This plan makes an awful lot of assumptions, but it does have the merit of working on the actual hand. The full deal:

J4
Q
742
KQ108764

108632
1065
A963
3
AKQ97
J3
K85
AJ2

5
AK98742
QJ10
95

West North East South

3 3NT dbl

pass pass 4 all pass

Result: 10 tricks, NS -620

The top scores for the month are listed below. Note that these scores will differ slightly from those published in the magazine. This is because several of the bids received from readers are not found by any members of the expert panel, and are initially given a score of zero. On closer inspection, many of these responses are given an upgrade, causing the perpetrator to suddenly move up the rankings.