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, 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 - South deals, both vul, IMPs. You are South.

	A
	J842
	A954
	AJ85

West	North	East	South
			1
pass	3 *	pass	?

is a limit raise (invitational).

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	45	24
Pass	80	25	32
3NT	70	15	14
4	60	10	5
3	50	0	10
5	40	5	9
4	20	0	5
4NT	0	0	1

David Hester: Pass. Actually I bid 2. This is why we ought to be playing inverted minor raises, and I thought we were. There is no room to explore, and if we have a game we might well bid the wrong one.

OK, so our first problem this month is a little artificial -- obviously these days nobody plays limit raises. Still it's good to look back on history occasionally, if only to appreciate how good we have it today.

John Leenders: 3. Assuming this shows a stopper, I'd like to hear 3 from partner before bidding 3NT.

Willem Willemse: 3. Hoping partner can bid 3NT with a spade stopper.

Fred Altstock: 3. If partner bids spades then I'll be happy with 3NT.

Rex Fox: 3. Like a long suit trial, if pard can help with at most one loser in that suit then bid 5, else sign off in 4.

Richard Fitzpatrick: 3. Shows major suit, asks partner to further describe. 3NT is the hoped-for destination.

Ken Berry: 3. Hope we don't end up one down in 4.

Andrew Gumperz: 3. Vul at IMPs we need to try for game, even if game will often fail.

Ian Smith: 3. A forcing bid investigating a NT game -- inviting 3 or 3NT from partner, otherwise happy to finish in 5.

David Monahan: 3. Pass looks a bit wimpish at IMPs.

The (barely) descriptive 3 bid is a clear winner, but there was a bit of confusion surrounding a possible 3 bid.

Fran Edwards: 3. Short suit trial bid.

Eric Leong: 3. The aces and the club AJ8x holding could be useful in game. Partner could well have something like: xxx-xx-KQxxx-KQx or the equivalent.

Bruce Crossman: 3. Asking for a spade stopper for NT.

Terry Dunne: 3. If nothing else, this might get the opps to lead spades rather than hearts. If partner bids 3NT, fine. Otherwise, I'll bid 5.

Tim Trahair: 3. Asks for a spade stopper. North has five diamonds and 3NT is on if he has spades stopped. Otherwise we play in 4.

Boris Richter: 3. Maybe the 5 game is a more playable contract than 3NT.

It's not clear to me at which point we decided that a new suit at the three-level is asking for a stopper. When there is only one unbid suit, a bid of that suit is often artificial (eg. 4th suit forcing), but I'm pretty sure this is unfeasible when there are three unbid suits!

Still, I've given the 3 bid a heavy (and probably unjustified) promotion, because to be honest, our spade stopper on this hand is better than our heart stopper. Actually, the club stopper is OK too -- has anyone considered notrumps?

Dean Sole: 3NT. Better chances than 5.

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. You have enough to accept an invitation and 9 tricks may be easier than 11. eg Qxx-Qx-KQxx-QTxx.

Barry Noble: 3NT. I considered Pass but think that is too weak and I have a good shot at 3NT.

For those who haven't met Barry Noble, he is one of Australia's most successful players, and it's great to have him on the readers' panel. Welcome, Barry, thanks for joining us.

Manuel Paulo: 3NT. I am trying to win 10 imps, risking to lose 5; a good bet, if my chance is at least 1 in 3, as I suppose.

Alexander Cook: 3NT. A bit of a gamble, but partner has 10-12 HCP with diamond support and 3NT should have a play.

Vlastimil Lev: 3NT. Hard hand. With 24-25 points we have to do something. 3 shows values there (which we don't have), and the spade suit is too short for 3.

That's why I originally chose 3NT, but on reflection I'm confidently changing my vote to join the readers' majority:

Chris Raisin: Pass. Using Losing Trick Count, North has 10-12 points and precisely 8 losers. Since South has 7 losers, a 3 level bid is high enough, thank you very much.

Steve Hurley: Pass. Invitational with 7 losers and no long suit. I pass!

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Because I have seven losers. Wonder why the opponents have not mentioned spades?

Pietro Campanile: Pass. I don't know if the points-inflation has affected Australian limit raises as much as over here, but a common 3 bid could usually guarantee around 9 points with QJ10xx in the suit, so I am definitely settling for a quiet 130.

Jameson Cole: Pass. Unless partner has concentrated strength in the minors, 3NT is probably down one or two. Similarly, there are too many hands where partner has random values that have no play for 4 let alone 5.

David Matthews: Pass. 3NT has no chance on a spade lead and 5 is a contract too far.

Bastiaan Korrner: Pass. 5 seems too far away.

Frank Campbell: Pass. If partner's 10 or 11 points included KQ in both minors I would bid and make 3NT. However my partner is rarely that obliging and they have at least nine spades so I am going for the likely plus with my minimum hand.

H C Wilton: Pass. I would bid 3NT if I could only know if partner had 6 card support, but failing that, it does seem a reach.

Richard Morse: Pass. Anything else seems a punt. We don't have the points or distribution for 5, and I have no riskless way of finding out where partner's points lie.

Margaret Reid: Pass. A plus seems to be a good result.

All excellent arguments, and I'm so convinced I don't really need to see the rest of the answers. But since you all went to the trouble of sending them, I guess we should take a quick look:

John Furedy: 4. I'd pass at matchpoints, but at imps give partner a chance to go 5 if he likes his limit raise.

Elizabeth Gilbert and Leon Slonim: 4. If you are maximum go to 5.

North: "Would you like to bid game, partner?"
South: "I don't know, partner, would you like to bid game?"
If you're going to answer partner's question with a question, the least you could do is include some new information! For example:

Sam Arber: 4. Make one more game try.

Paul Tranmer: 4. This will prohibit a back-in by EW, and if I hit a second fit in clubs 5 will be very playable.

Exactly; you've already bid the diamonds once, so there's nothing to be gained by bidding them again. Much better to show a second suit and see if partner is impressed. Unless of course you've already decided on the final destination:

Helena Dawson: 5. Doesn't give anything away to the opps. Maybe should have just passed. Where are all the spades?

Sydney Frish: 5. I expect partner to have five diamonds and a 7-loser hand to invite a minor game. 3NT may be on but 5 looks safer.

Dean Eidler: 5. Not enough tricks for 3NT.

Jeremy Kennard: 5. As partner has chosen to make a limit raise rather than bid 2NT, I would assume he has marginal major suit controls, and at best only 3-3 in the majors. I don't consider my spade a stop, nor my hearts.

This problem raises an interesting point of bidding forum theory: 25% of the panel pass, and 75% bid, but the 75% is split between seven different bids. So, given that the panel all agree on moving forward, even though they can't agree how to do it, then isn't 80 points for the pass a little over-generous?

Probably, but I happen to agree with the pass so I'm not going to make a fuss about it.

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

	J86
	AK
	AKJ64
	AQT

West	North	East	South
		2¹	dbl
2²	pass	pass	?

1. 2

shows a weak two in a major.
2. 2

is pass-or-correct.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
2NT	100	30	5
3	90	5	40
Dbl	80	25	24
3NT	80	25	6
3	60	15	20
4	0	0	1
Pass	0	0	4

On the previous deal, most people were concerned about their A being too fragile a stopper for an unbid suit. Now let's see what happens when we give you Jxx and let the opponents bid the suit.

Dean Eidler: 2NT. With the quality of weak twos these days partner probably has at least 1.5 stoppers.

S Sashital: 3NT. No convenient way to invite game. I need as little as Q and Q for making my game.

Bridge Baron: 3NT. Bridge Baron is apparently unconcerned about the lack of a spade stopper.

Eric Leong: 3NT. You are never going to get the right bid from partner as he is never going to read you for a 22 HCP hand. If you want to act you are assuming partner has something to make game so you should just bid the most likely game and take the pressure off of partner.

H C Wilton: 3NT. Why didn't I bid 3NT the previous round?

That's what I said when I first saw the problem. We'll never be able to describe this hand accurately anyway, and maybe a direct 3NT bid might have kept West in the dark. But with our heart shortage, West was never really in the dark -- if East has spades, West must have enough hearts to be able to read the situation (unless North has enough hearts to be able to declare them).

So maybe our first round double isn't as bad as I first thought; I still would have bid 3NT though.

We had the pleasure this month of receiving two sets of answers from Nigel Guthrie. I love it when people do this, because they never agree with themselves. But rarely do we see a case of schizophrenia as severe as Nigel's. Here's exhibit A:

Nigel Guthrie: 3. The walrus counts his points and makes the sensible value bid. Although, in practice, double or 2NT could work better.

So basically anything other than 3, you say. Hang on...

Nigel Guthrie #2: 3. RHO has primary heart support. You would rather that partner plays 3NT if he has Kxx or Ax.

Nigel #2 makes a good point, and he is supported by 40% of the readers' vote... but only one lone member of the expert panel. From the magazine:

Michael Ware: 3. Just blasting notrumps seems unnecessary; my failure to double again should keep us out of bad heart fits.

Every month Michael comes up with at least one bid that none of the other experts agree with, so we're always glad to have him on the panel. All these people are glad to have him on the panel too:

Fran Edwards, Helena Dawson, Emil Battista, Sydney Frish, Amiram Millet, Tim Trahair and Bastiaan Korrner: 3. Partner, can you stop spades?

Terry Dunne: 3. Showing my hand strength and letting partner bid 3NT with a stopper -- what a bid!

David Matthews, Paul Tranmer and Bruce Crossman: 3. It's just possible partner has a half stop in spades for 3NT; alternatively we may be able to play in 4 if he has five. Otherwise we will end up in a minor.

Dean Sole: 3. Partner is marked with two spades -- let's try for the nine-trick game.

Jeremy Kennard: 3. I would bid 3 in my partnership's defence to multi following first round double, showing 20+ with a diamond suit.

Sam Arber: 3. Must be ongoing -- asking for stopper, denying four hearts (since I didn't double again).

Tim Andrews: 3. Need to force a bid from partner to find the best game.

Ken Berry: 3. Partner will know what to do!!

Rex Fox: 3. Pard has at least 12 cards outside spades -- even with no points a four level contract should be OK.

David Hester: 3. Primarily a try for 3NT. Other destinations are possible.

This next group, the 3 bidders, all seem to believe that if we have a game on, partner will move. Maybe they're right, but I don't think so.

Alexander Cook: 3. You don't have a stopper for 3NT and double should show at least three hearts with this strength.

Steve Hurley: 3. Partner will move with anything and if he does, I move.

Richard Morse: 3. Another double now surely implies hearts, and they could run the first six tricks in NT. Pass is surely too feeble.

Barry Noble: 3. I could double and bid 5 over partner's probable 4 bid but prefer to see if he can support diamonds.

Jameson Cole: 3. Partner needs very little for game, eg 4-9543-Q652-J974. With 4-9543-Q652-K974, slam is likely.

Boris Richter: 3. Partner is probably short in spades, maybe we can find some playable game somewhere else.

I was quite surprised (and pleased) to see such a low turnout for 3. As Eric Leong said earlier, there is no way partner will read us for such a strong hand, so 3 is just forcing partner to make a decision armed with no information. Both 3 and 3NT need some help, so why make 110 our goal?

A more effective way to enlist (enforce?) partner's cooperation:

Elizabeth Gilbert: Dbl. 3 seems too weak with 22 HCP but if partner bids hearts I'll have to rebid 4.

Willem Willemse: Dbl. Take out. Partner must have a void in spades. If he bids 3 I have a natural inviting bid of 3.

Peter Smulders: Dbl. 2 might make so we will lift them one higher.

Vlastimil Lev: Dbl. Most flexible bid -- partner would pass with Qxx-xxx-xxx-xxxx or bid 3NT with Qxx-xxx-Qxx-Kxxx.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. After West's response, partner may bid hearts, but that is not likely.

John Leenders and Margaret Reid: Dbl. Too much strength for 3. If partner bids 3, I bid 3.

Andrew Gumperz: Dbl. This hand is a question of methods. Pass-then-dbl should be takeout of spades, while dbl-then-dbl shows a big balanced hand. This would be a harder problem against a weak 2 opening.

Privately I have a lot of admiration for this next group, although publicly I can't find an excuse to overrule the panel and award any points to this wild choice:

Chris Raisin: Pass. Likely opponents will go down, with strength on South's left play will be around to strength. NT unlikely with weak spades, and any finesses are bound to fail. A double for penalty may be misinterpreted by partner as takeout with a liking for hearts!

Richard Fitzpatrick: Pass. As lovely as the hand is, there is nothing to be gained from bidding. Five solid tricks (perhaps) not enough to double at two level.

No full details of this deal, but I was prompted to run a simulation (because one of my colleagues laughed at me when I bid 2NT). The simulation showed diamonds to have a marginally higher success rate than notrump (with a smaller return of course).

Hand Three - North deals, nil vul, Board-a-match. You are South.

	K2
	KJ876
	A6
	J762

West	North	East	South
	1¹	pass	2
2NT²	4³	5	?

1. Natural and limited. Five or more spades, 9-14 HCP.
2. Both minors.
3. Splinter (heart support with club shortage). Still 9-14 HCP.

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
6	100	35	17
Pass	100	30	9
6	90	15	1
5	80	5	1
5	70	15	47
Dbl	20	0	25

Jameson Cole: 5. I'd like to pass then pull partner's double to invite 6, but I don't think this is a clear forcing pass situation, so I can't afford to pass and discuss the hand afterwards. On a bad day, I have three losers, on a good day, only one. Is the 1 bid really part of the AB bidding system?

Not part of the system (yet) but hey, Moscito players have bidding problems too, and they need your assistance to solve these problems just as much as Standard players (some would say even more so).

Terry Dunne: Pass. Even with partner holding a minimum, this is still a forcing pass situation. The hand is good enough to pass and pull even though we have a certain plus on defence after a club lead.

Steve Johnston: Pass. Forcing. Followed by 5 = slam try.

David Hester: Pass. I assume this is forcing. In spite of the double fit, my hand is reasonable in defence.

Vlastimil Lev: 6. Good slam opposite AQxxx-Axxx-xx-x. I would prefer a forcing pass and correct any bid to 6, as partner could have huge hand AQJxx-Axxxx-xx-x.

Clearly there was some uncertainty about the forcingness of the pass (yes, forcingness is a real word); but the panel showed strong support for both the direct route and the delayed route, so it's 100 points for everybody. Except the 47% of readers who managed to reach a making contract -- sorry guys, the panel just wasn't on your side today and you only get 70.

Boris Richter: 5. Should make, hopefully not 6 though :-)

Pietro Campanile: 5. East-West has a nice double fit, while on our side spades will probably break atrociously. Still I have this excited 9-14 chappie in the North seat jumping about with a likely 5-5 in the majors. Best to make him happy with 5. You never know, on a good day he might have his bid.

Alexander Cook: 5. Except for the J, all your points should be working. 5 seems an automatic bid here.

Sam Arber: 5. May be able to give partner two club ruffs for 500 but stick with 5 bid.

Nice defence Sam, picked it perfectly. But that's only 300.

Helena Dawson: 5. 5 doubled is the alternative but has to go three off to gain. Decision would be a lot easier if they were vulnerable vs non vul.

Richard Fitzpatrick: 5. Doubling is attractive, but putting EW down three might be tricky.

Jeremy Kennard: 5. Opponents have clear double fit, I have good secondary fit in spades, and no wasted club values. Don't think we are getting enough from 5 doubled.

David Monahan: 5. Partner is short in both minors -- double may only yield 100 and 5 has a very good chance especially with the doubleton spade king.

Eric Leong: 5. The bidding sounds like either the opponents can almost make 5 or we can almost make 5.

Barry Noble: 5. I could double but my hand is too strong.

Steve Hurley: 5. Bidding suggests partner has two diamonds and one club, so that likely means two minor suit losers. Such strong bidding likely means the two major aces so I bid 5.

Sydney Frish and Tim Trahair: 5. It should play well, with excellent chance for a cross-ruff.

While 5 was the last making spot at the table, 85% of the panel are looking at slams and grand slam tries. I initially didn't include 5 or 6 on the drop down list, but I added them in as soon as it became apparent that the panel were all on steroids. So anyone who answered in the first few days wouldn't have had those bids as an option, and would have had to select "Other". Like this guy:

Andrew Gumperz: 5. I don't need much to make 6. 7 is possible if partner has a club void.

John Leenders: 6. 4 suggests to me that it is at the upper end of 9-14. Require A and A for 6.

John Furedy: 6. Not sure, but they've gone up too high to investigate. Shortage in clubs is a positive feature, as is North's bid (assume he is closer to 14 than 9).

Paul Tranmer: 6. I should be able to assemble 12 tricks somehow, probably by ruffing two or three clubs in dummy and/or establishing the spades.

Zbych Bednarek: 6. Need only both aces, and for sure he has more when he bid splinter. I can't see chances for reach grand slam, it would be wishful thinking.

H C Wilton: 6. If it's not cold (with info from the bidding useful in the play), they still might well take the save.

Amiram Millet: 6. Give up on a possible 7.

Finally, a quarter of the readers went for the penalty double, expecting to take a trick with the A and... well, I don't really know what other tricks they were expecting. But with so many votes I felt obliged to award some points, so double has been promoted to 20.

Bastiaan Korrner: Dbl. A bit of a guess, lead a spade.

Emil Battista: Dbl. The five level belongs to the opponents. 5 may make, 5 is not likely. Club lead should give partner a club ruff.

Nigel Guthrie: Dbl. Double may be second best if partner has say Axxxx-AQxx-xxx-void. Your 800 (on a club lead) may provide a measure of compensation.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. We would most probably not make 5 but this is likely to collect 500 or more and is now our best chance to win the board.

Pat O'Connor: Dbl. Will lead a club.

Ian Erratt: Dbl. Could be a good lead question for us amateurs.

Tim Andrews: Dbl. Partner has 5-4 in majors -- but we probably go down in 5. Double may get us the best score.

Ken Berry: Dbl. I think they are too high, and partner has a club ruff coming.

Margaret Reid: Dbl. Hope to get 300 here, I don't think we have more than 4.

300 is there on perfect defence (North has to underlead the heart at trick two -- will he read your 2 as suit preference?). But even that would rarely win the board against a cold game.

Being board-a-match scoring, our only goal here is to improve on the score from the other table. As it happens, NS at the other table weren't smart enough to be playing Moscito, and they didn't even get into the auction -- and here we are making grand slam tries! Our teammates played uncontested in 4, making an overtrick -- so we will win this board as long as we stay out of 7NT.

QJ7643
AQ1043
92
---

---
52
KJ854
AQ8543
A10985
9
Q1073
K109

K2
KJ876
A6
J762

West North East South

Nunn Hans

pass 2 pass

3 pass 4 all pass

Making five, NS -150

West North East South

Marston Prescott

1 pass 2

2NT 4 5 6

all pass

One down, NS -50

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

	A763
	9
	Q9643
	K63

West	North	East	South
1	2	pass	pass
dbl	pass	2	pass
pass	dbl	pass	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3	100	50	43
Pass	70	10	33
4	60	25	8
3	60	15	1
2NT	0	0	12
5	0	0	2
3NT	0	0	1

Paul Tranmer: 3. The hand doesn’t rate to play well in what might be a 5-3 diamond fit and despite the complementary major suit shortages I cannot see us being able to garner 11 tricks. Any thoughts of passing the double for penalties should be discarded quickly as the spades are nowhere near good enough.

There's really not much to add to that answer. Other variations on the same comment:

Terry Dunne: 3. It's too risky at imps to leave the double in given that the reward is so small.

David Matthews: 3. It's too risky to leave 2 doubled. Remember partner did not double on the first round.

H C Wilton: 3. Game is unlikely and I would only gamble a pass in a pairs event.

Bridge Baron: 3. Bridge Baron shows the eight-card fit in response to partner's takeout double.

Manuel Paulo: 3. I quote Edgar Kaplan's 'I take out partner's takeout double'.

Down here we thought Chadwick owned that phrase -- I guess he pinched it.

Andrew Gumperz: 3. This hand is very good on the auction. Unfortunately, no game contract will play well unless we catch a 4th diamond in dummy. If they compete to 3 I will hit it.

David Hester: 3. It seems one round early to try for a penalty.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. The auction marks you with some values so 3 is quite enough. 2 doubled probably goes down but the auction is not over yet.

For those people who feel we are too strong for 3, the choice is between 4 and 2NT. The readers favoured 2NT:

Richard Fitzpatrick: 2NT. Some coverage in the other suits; 2NT makes it clear hearts are not on.

Elizabeth Gilbert: 2NT. I don't think I am strong enough to pass -- if I didn't bid 2NT I would bid 3.

David Monahan: 2NT. 3 could be bid with no values -- this hand is a max passed hand.

It's true that this is a maximum hand for our bidding, but the partnership still needs 25 points for game (more on a likely misfit). Is partner's bidding really consistent with a 17-count?

Frank Campbell: 2NT. 3 or 3NT could be right but I assume partner is strong with no second suit so will show the stoppers and await developments.

Helena Dawson: 2NT. Tempted to leave double in but quality of spades not good enough. Double them into game? No thank you.

Ken Berry: 2NT. I think that I must try this rather than 3, and partner isn't finished yet.

Partner was finished on the previous round -- when he doubled 2 he was just being polite. (At the table North wasn't polite enough to find the double, and 2 was the final contract).

Chris Raisin: 2NT. Prefer to be in NT, with North having good hearts. West has 12-15 HCP, East has at most 5 HCP (since no initial support for partner) so point distribution is probably in our favour. Notrump scores better than diamonds.

The expert panel unanimously rejected 2NT with barely a mention. Personally, my rule (which I learned from my days playing relay systems) is to never play notrumps when I have an unsupported ace opposite a singleton.

The safer way to show a good hand (if you really feel you have to) is 4:

Richard Morse: 4. I'm so-o-o-o much better than partner would expect for 3. Passing is suicide, IMHO.

Ian Smith: 4. Partner obviously wants me to compete. I'm expecting a spade shortage and diamond support and with my short hearts and 12 TP I'm happy to invite game in 5.

Boris Richter: 4. Partner should be holding at least 3 cards in support for diamonds and I have a good hand despite the singleton in partner's suit.

John Leenders: 4. Invitational to 5, Partner has 544 hand with max for the double.

Vlastimil Lev: 4. Game try. Give parner eg x-AQxxx-AKx-QJxx.

Sam Arber: 4. Partner did not double initially, probably 1534 shape too good to bid 3 only.

Lastly we have the penalty pass, which was supported by just two of the experts (Michael Ware and Ron Klinger). Klinger cites the majority of points and the misfit with partner as sufficient reasons for defending, and John Furedy echoes his comments:

John Furedy: Pass. Singleton heart should be useful in defence, and partner should have values to overcall vul at 2 level. On the other hand, we don't have game.

Eric Leong: Pass. Given partner's delayed double and our hand, dummy must be pretty feeble. Also, dummy could well have a doubleton spade. Further, our side seems to have a couple of tricks in each minor and partner owns the heart suit. Where are declarer's tricks coming from? There should be a good chance to set 2 down at least a couple.

Jeremy Kennard: Pass. Either East is weak or has only doubleton spade. Hand looks misfitting, I have shortage in partner's suit and partner should have at least an opening hand now.

Jameson Cole: Pass. Since partner didn't redouble, he can't have a monster hand, but now his double shows a willingness to compete. Since I have a better than average hand, East must hold very little and he is trying to force us one higher (holding nothing). Hopefully we'll have the last laugh, not East!

Sydney Frish: Pass. I'd be very surprised if we couldn't take at least six tricks.

Fran Edwards: Pass. Not a double or Michaels from partner with the first bid. So it should be penalty this time.

This deal is from the 2006 Dick Cummings Pairs. Defending 2 would be a heart-stopping affair, while our highest scoring contract is 3/4 (11 tricks are there if we pick every card, not impossible on the auction).

8
AK1076
AJ52
1097

KQJ42
J3
K7
AJ84
1095
Q8542
108
Q52

A763
9
Q9643
K63

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

	Q8
	A2
	AKQT642
	A5

West	North	East	South
		3	?

Call	Award	% Panel	% Readers
3NT	100	60	22
Dbl	90	25	40
5	80	15	20
4	20	0	17
Pass	0	0	1

The fourth problem in this month's "spade stopper" trilogy. The ace of spades wasn't good enough on hands 1 and 4, but jack-third was fine on hand 2. Now let's look at a doubleton queen.

Nigel Guthrie: 3NT. Whatever panellists claim, 3NT would be the unanimous bid in real life.

Nigel may think that 3NT is the unanimous answer, but what does Nigel think?

Nigel Guthrie #2: 5. A practical shot. Double is likely to get 4 which won't help much. 4 may result in a missed game opposite say xx-xxx-Jxx-Kxxxx.

Sounds like Nigel needs to sit down and have a long talk with himself. Speaking of unanimous panels, our newest guest expert receives 80 points for this contribution, supported by just a quarter of the panel:

Pietro Campanile: Dbl. Trumpets, drumrolls... "Ladies and Gentlemen, for the first time in the history of Australian Bridge we have a unanimous panel".

So, that sums up all the possible unanimous answers. Before looking at the arguments for each choice, let's hear a few words from the minority:

Bridge Baron: 4. Bridge Baron is quite heavy for this bid. We need to teach it that it can bid 5 with this hand, which is at least a little closer to the true strength.

Andrew Gumperz: 4. Most likely route to a plus score. It goes against my grain to bid 4 with nine tricks, but I suspect I will need more than two kings to make 5 and assuming sane preemption, 3NT will go down more than half the time.

Boris Richter: 4. OK, 3NT is maybe the best contract but I'm afraid not only of going down a lot but also of missing some cold slam, and since the double is I guess for takeout, bidding 4 is the only logical alternative.

Chris Raisin: 4. Assuming East's bid is preempt, highly likely North has at least one diamond in hand. With only 4 losers in South's hand and since East is 6-9 HCP, partner is likely to have fewer than 10 losers. Even with 9 losers (6-9TP) game is likely. Being IMPs, caution is required.

H C Wilton: 4. Why be down in 3NT when 6 might well be on?

Barry Noble: 4. Only interested in 5 or 6 if partner responds.

Could be right, but I don't think the maths is on your side. I'm sure you didn't get to where you are by playing this kind of hand in a partscore, Barry.

Back to the three main choices, starting with the obvious:

Dean Eidler: 3NT. Same as problem 2 -- no one has a solid suit for preempts these days.

Eric Leong: 3NT. I am guessing but 3NT could be the only game that makes opposite very little from partner. Other bids are guesses too but pray for more HCP from partner to succeed.

Paul Tranmer: 3NT. Assuming East has seven spades, I need North to hold A or K, or Jxx(x) or xxxx. Even xxx will be enough if West holds singleton A or K. Also if West holds something like x-KQJ10x-Jxx-KQJx he might be tempted to lead a heart!

David Hester: 3NT. This tells the men from the boys, and I am 72 with a reputation for caution. Let's hope it survives this hand.

I accused David last month of bidding like a youth player. At 72, he's the equivalent of a whole table of youth players!

Steve Hurley: 3NT. On the assumption that diamonds run, partner either has something in spades or both K and K. Less to hope for in 3NT than 5.

Willem Willemse: 3NT. If partner has king or jack-third in spades, it will be a reasonable safe road to 3NT. There is no way of finding that out.

Richard Morse: 3NT. And run if I'm doubled.

Amiram Millet: 3NT. If they double I run to 4.

OK, that was less convincing than I thought it would be. How about the double? With a 40% vote from the readers, there must be some good reason for the bid.

Bruce Crossman: Dbl. If partner bids 3NT look for 6.

Alexander Cook: Dbl. 4 would show fewer points, 5 is a guess and 3NT is a little too hair raising for my liking. If partner bids hearts or clubs as expected, I will bid diamonds.

Sam Arber: Dbl. If partner bids 4 bid 5. Could gamble on 3NT.

David Matthews: Dbl. I think 3NT is out. Over 4 I will bid 4 and over 4 I'm still thinking about it.

Emil Battista: Dbl. Hoping partner can bid 3NT. 4 will be more welcome than 4.

Fran Edwards and Barbara Whitmee: Dbl. Give partner a chance to 3NT first, before resorting to the diamonds. (And yes, even if partner says 4, I'd still say 5).

John Leenders: Dbl. A bid of 4 is too weak, a double might extract a 3NT bid from partner, If not, a rebid of 5 is all that is left.

Fred Altstock: Dbl. Double first to show a big hand then bid diamonds and maybe we might get to 6.

Frank Campbell: Dbl. In a perfect world partner would bid 3NT! Can't see it happening so it is quite probable my next bid will be 5.

Peter Smulders, Elizabeth Gilbert and Ian Patterson: Dbl. If partner says anything other than 3NT I will bid 5.

The doublers seem to be presenting a confident and united front, hoping to play 3NT but with 5 as a backup plan. A couple of mild dissenters: David hasn't decided on his 2nd bid yet, and Bruce is planning to reject notrumps if partner is kind enough to bid them. But basically, a solid group of arguments for a bid that I hadn't really considered.

Finally, the 5 bid:

Tim Trahair: 5. If double, we will find ourselves correcting North's response to 5. So let's get there now and perhaps North will be able to bid 6 or NT.

Terry Dunne: 5. Assuming we get an average eight points from partner, this is a good contract. Any two of the three missing kings, and nothing else, is laydown of course. There is no safe way to get to 3NT.

Jameson Cole: 5. What I think I can make if partner has a random 7-count. With the A or K, partner should bid 6.

John Furedy: 5. I don't dare to bid 4 in case it's passed, and with two possible losers in spades, can't contemplate a slam (though I suppose pard with A may go on). Especially at imps, 5 seems the best.

Looks like Jameson and John are on the same wavelength in their slam bidding, although it should be fun watching them try to find 12 tricks.

Sydney Frish: 5. Promising nine tricks -- expect partner to bid six with three winners in hand.

Jeremy Kennard: 5. Will bid 4 with worse hands than this so can't expect partner to raise with 6-count.

Ian Smith: 5. I don't need much from partner here and expect to make 5.

Ken Berry: 5. Can't stand to hear hearts from partner, refuse to pass, and will not bid notrumps. A wonderful problem -- is there a right answer?

Yes. 3NT. Final word goes to the man who submitted the problem:

Eric Kokish: 3NT. Double and 5 are just different gambles.

This problem is from last year's OzOne training session with Eric Kokish. There are no details of the full deal, but the surprisingly diverse auctions from the six OzOne pairs are listed in the magazine.

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 have a score of zero at the time of printing. Once all the reader's votes are in, including the occasional appeal, these responses are sometimes upgraded causing changes to the scores and rankings.