A difficult set of problems, where the readers came up with 15 bids not even considered by the expert panel. So if you thought you were out of the running in the 2003 Readers' Race, this was your chance to catch up. Let's see how you went...

Martin Eggins: 3. It's time for partner to find out where the other strong hand is!

Fred Altstock: 3. With an opening hand opposite an opening hand should be game somewhere. I'm inviting partner to bid 4 or 3NT.

Bill Bennett: 3. Probably the strongest hand at the table; we should have a game, most likely in spades because a NT game would require spade tricks.

Margaret Reid: 3. Too good for 2, a 6-card suit, and my K is sitting well.

George Edwards: 3. Dbl sounds possible. Not NT because partner did not bid 3 or 3 or 3. I will emphasise spades and not force to game.

Duncan Roe: 3. Inviting game (I hope).

John Sarjeant: 3. Least of evils. No great pressure at matchpoints to punt a thin game with an aceless hand and an empty suit.

Sydney Frish: 3. Enough points to force to game (with 4 looking safer than 3NT making 4). However to bid 4 would deny partner an opportunity to make a decision.

Over one third of the readers voted for 3 (some believing it to be forcing), so the bid must have some merit. But why did the panel completely overlook this bid?

Sam Arber: 3. Tempting to bid 3NT. Partner probably has five clubs and some diamond values, but only has two spades having failed to make a support double. Bruce Williams: 3. Check partner for delayed spades or diamond stopper. If neither, will try 5.

Roger Courtney: 2. I feel this is an underbid and would have fit jumped to 2 on the previous round if it was available. However the lack of a support double suggests this is as high as I should bid on total tricks and I'm worried about top losers.

The lack of support double does suggest that partner has at most two spades, but that's just the start. As Bruce points out, partner will be planning to give preference at his next turn if he has a doubleton. By bidding 3 ourselves, we are encouraging partner to support with a singleton - or even a void!

If you don't believe this, think back to the following problem from this column four months ago:

Hand One from April 2003   3 Q9763 AK83 752 West North East South       pass pass 1 pass 1NT pass 3 pass ? Call Award % Panel % Readers 4 100 44 49 3NT 90 40 27 Pass 40 16 12 4 20 0 9 4 10 0 3

Assuming that we do still want to try for game, but are not willing to commit to spades just yet, there are several other ways forward. First, the cuebid:

Ron Hutchison: 3. Given a choice of cue bids as here it is best to cue your stronger holding.

Gareth Birdsall: 3. Not clear what strain we want to play in, so I'll force with 3.

Andrew Gordon: 3. Difficult problem. This bid will elicit more info from partner.

One problem with the cuebid is that it rules out defending. The opponents have a 7- or 8-card fit in hearts, and unless partner is about to bid spades, we have a 7-card fit. If the Law of Total Tricks has any validity, this auction may already have gone too high:

Mike Doecke: Dbl. Keeping alive the penalty option.

Ian Patterson: Dbl. Partner is 2434 minimum. 3NT or 4 could make but opponents have a misfit.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. Partner should have either a weak balanced hand (we'll play 4), or some hearts (we'll defend).

John Leenders: Dbl. Then I can rebid 3, stronger than an immediate 3 bid.

Ron Lel: Dbl. For takeout of course.

David Hester: Dbl. I seem to have committed an action double, and at age 69 have thus qualified as the oldest young trendy in the forum. If my partner misfits spades, as his silence suggests, he must have some red cards, but could not act because he had no idea I was this strong. At matchpoints frequency of gain has priority over magnitude.

Yes, you can always rely on the double, whether it be takeout, action, penalty, protective, strength-showing, or whatever partner interprets it as.

Finally, avoiding all the confusion and seeking a simple life:

Nathan Crafti: 3NT. Typical hand-hogging matchpoint style bid. I explain to partner if we go down that I had three kings to protect.

Even the most common situations cause confusion about the meaning of double, and there is nothing common about this hand.

Valio Kovachev: Dbl. Hard, but I have to tell my partner that I have a trap pass.

Ian Patterson: Dbl. Penalties. 3NT over 3 from partner, pass over 4.

Gareth Birdsall: Dbl. We may easily have a penalty on, so I'll start with double which should be takeout of clubs. I can always bid hearts later.

Sartaj Hans: Pass. No one has a fit. To double here is not penalty. Couldn't we have a 4450 or the like?

Roger Courtney: Pass. I quite like double as an alternative but from looking at the system its not clear to me how partner will react.

Ron Lel: Pass. Stay fixed on this. We figure to beat 3, but a double would be for takeout.

With all of this confusion you'd have to be brave to risk double at the table. Realistically, the choice is between pass and 3. The majority chose to pass, either believing that the board has already been won ...

Mike Doecke: Pass. Hoping for a positive score. The rest of the field is likely to go minus in hearts. Manuel Paulo: Pass. Hoping for the magical +200, when any game is unlikely. John Sarjeant: Pass. Defend when there is a misfit and hope to pick up a couple of hundred.

... or out of fear of making things worse ...

Sara Tishler: Pass. Nowhere to go.

Sydney Frish: Pass. Without opposition bidding I'd like to be in 4, but they may have a very good fit in clubs (with void or singleton heart on my left) so why show where the remaining points are?

Bruce Williams: Pass. Nothing else really one can do!

Ron Hutchison: Pass. Double may work at matchpoints but I dont have the guts.

... or else trusting the other three players to rescue us ...

Duncan Roe: Pass. Sit tight and hope they egg each other on.

Margaret Reid: Pass. Nothing to say, maybe my pard can double.

Andrew Gordon: Pass. Awkward. Partner can still bid, but will be suprised with my hand.

True. There is only one player at this table with a good hand, so if we don't want to defend 3 then the problem is all ours.

David Hester: 3. An abrupt reversion to old-fashioned. This doesn't come up often, and I hope my partner will realise that I wouldn't bid this way if I had any reasonable alternative.

Fred Altstock: 3. Have to show that I have hearts. Probably not enough for game.

John Leenders: 3. This hand has no defense and 3 needs one trick from partner. I don't believe they will double us.

Bill Bennett: 3. Not a cue bid, since I passed first time. Pard's strength is unknown but we may have a game.

George Edwards: 3. I have five heart winners and a diamond and perhaps a club on the lead. Partner may have a cover card or two?

Luis Argerich: 3. West must have just bid his shortest non-heart suit so we can actually have a spade fit, and I have very good values and well placed. I'm tempted to bid 3 (but I need to score more than zero :-) so I'll bid 3, and if partner bids 3 I will raise.

And still avoiding all the confusion and seeking a simple life:

Nathan Crafti: 3NT. Typical hand-hogging matchpoint style bid. I explain to partner if I go down that I felt reallllly sure that I had hearts stopped.

Tony Rolfe: 3NT. Would bid 3 if I believed pard would pass. Otherwise, if in doubt, bid 3NT.

The full deal, contributed by Mary Elson from the Kattery Bridge Club in Glen Iris:

ª KJ95 © J ¨ J765 § A975 ª AT763 © --- ¨ AT8432 § 82 ª 82 © K5432 ¨ 9 § QJT63 ª Q4 © AQT9876 ¨ KQ § K4

NS make 3 and 4NT, with 800 available from 3 or 3. North's J is not necessary in order to make 3NT.

Another hand where the readers found five bids overlooked by the panel, and ten different bids overall. For simplicity, we'll begin with those who have already chosen a trump suit, and later we'll take a look at the explorers.

Sartaj Hans: 4. With no intelligent way of inviting slam, I am stuck between bidding game or forcing slam. I choose the low road, and even if hearts break 5-1 or so, my high card power should see me through. At the table, I chose pass, which is misguided.

A few readers did vote for the pass, expecting 800, although it's hard to imagine that declarer has less than six trump tricks in hand and one or two ruffs in dummy.

Fred Altstock: 4. Partner probably has hearts and I have 16 HCP - enough for game.

Martin Eggins: 4. Phew! An easier one!

Margaret Reid: 4. If we miss a slam, the preempt achieved its aim.

Sara Tishler: 5. If partner has the heart honours he will go to 6.

Same comment from Bruce Williams and Nathan Crafti.

The explorers came in several shapes and sizes, but all with the same basic idea, and mostly committed to slam:

Toby Weinstein: 4. 5NT pick a slam could be right.

Luis Argerich: 5NT. Pick a slam. I want to play a slam from the other side so a 5 bid asking partner to pick a slam in transfer mode would have been useful. Did I invent a convention?

Ron Hutchison: 5. Pick a slam. 7 may be cold but I won't bid it.

Andrew Gordon: 4. Looking for slam, suit to be decided. Not interested in just +500 for the penalty double.

Mike Doecke: 4. Planning to raise partner's suit to slam.

Same plan from Bill Bennett, Roger Courtney, Ian Patterson and John Leenders.

Valio Kovachev: 4. Slam try, then big slam try with 5NT or something like that.

George Edwards: 4. It is my next bid that is of concern. Partner should have a good hand for his takeout double in the direct position.

Ron Lel: 4. I think the problem will come on the next round, but I can hardly bid less than this with first round controls in all suits.

Eddie Kantar once said "When you don't know what to do, double. At least you will usually get another chance at not knowing what to do." The same philosophy applies even more strongly to cuebids!

David Hester: 4. The problem is on the next round: small slam or grand? If he doesn't jump, I'll probably settle for small.

Gareth Birdsall: 4. With this monster it's a pity neither of us will be able to bid Blackwood so grands may be too hard to reach. If we have mirrored distribution we may not make five!

Most of the minority votes (4, 6, 4NT) did not come with comments. The 3NT bidders were expecting partner to bid again when it is right, which seems unlikely.

The full deal, featuring a very non-George Edwards style double:

ª 6 © J9652 ¨ KJ83 § KQT ª QJ97542 © K73 ¨ Q7 § 8 ª K83 © Q ¨ 942 § J97642 ª AT © AT84 ¨ AT65 § A53

Slam depends on bringing in the diamonds, which would be a lot easier if partner had the queen, or maybe some other decent cards.

After the insanity of our last two hands, it's good to settle back into a simple everyday problem - just your common garden 4-level decision on a 21-count.

Waiting for a better hand:

Andrew Gordon: Pass. Partner probably has nothing and we are vulnerable. I do not feel like bidding at the 4 level on my own. John Leenders: Pass. Partner has no high cards, and doubling is a long shot.

John Sarjeant: Pass. Game or even four of a minor must be odds against and we might pick up 1 or 200 defending.

Toby Weinstein: Pass. That is why preempts work.

That's one of the reasons why preempts work. Here's another reason:

Sartaj Hans: 3NT. I paid my table money. I bid my games.

George Edwards: 3NT. Hopefully showing lots of cards and hoping partner can make a good decision.

The majority vote, as is common, went to the double:

Bill Bennett: Dbl. Intending to bid 4 over 3, or raise 4 of either minor to game.

The real question is what to do over partner's 4 (either now or after an initial 3 bid).

Margaret Reid: Dbl. 2nd double is stronger - if pard bids spades I will bid 4 and hope pard has six spades or diamond support.

Unwilling to rule out a 4 contract, not everyone is planning to bid 4 over 3:

David Hester: Dbl. Again, problems come later; I shall convert 3 to 3NT, suggesting doubt, as I didn't bid it at once. I may be down in anything, but passing is hardly an option. Ron Hutchison: Dbl. If pard bids 3 I will bid 3NT. If 4 [unlikely] I will bid 5. Am hoping pard can pass.

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Will bid 3NT over 3, raise minor, or partner can penalty pass.

Tony Rolfe: Dbl. And 4 over 3.

Manuel Paulo: Dbl. If partner has xxx-xx-Axx-xxxxx NS make 4 but not 4.

Gareth Birdsall: Dbl. Torn between double and pass. There are still chances of game for us so I'll keep things as flexible as possible by doubling.

Luis Argerich: Dbl. Lot of values and no good alternative, I hate to do this to partner but I do need him to bid something. If he bids spades I pass, if he bids a minor I bid game.

And finally, there is the 4 bid, which has been given a promoted score largely due to the ugliness of the double:

Ian Patterson: 4. 5 at next opportunity.

Martin Eggins: 4. I'm competing with 21 HCP!

You've already competed with 13 of your points on the last round. Technically you're now competing with just the other eight!

Sara Tishler: 4. I hope partner has Q and A and goes to five.

Sydney Frish: 4. 4 and see what happens. Of course 3NT would be easy with just the right few cards in partner's hand.

Sadly we don't have the full details of this deal, but I have been told that pass was the winner at the table.

A familiar tale. A few people jumping off the cliff, a few hiding under the table, and the majority settling for something in between. First, the timid:

Sydney Frish: Pass. Cannot bid freely over 3 with three points and invite to game. If partner takes further action I'll bid the hearts.

Ron Lel: Pass. 3 will play very badly on a trump lead.

John Sarjeant: 3. Ready to apologise if this goes to the cleaners as it may well.

Sara Tishler: Pass. I could bid hearts but that could be a gamble.

Nathan Crafti: Pass. I'll bet Alvin Roth says that this is an impossible auction, and I would agree with him. No defence, no fit and the enemy have got themselves into a humungous minor suit part score. For what possible reason could I want to bid?

Almost correct Nathan. Al Roth said Hand Two was the impossible auction, not this one.

As for fit, most people believe that partner must have four hearts, which is quite a good fit.

John Leenders: 4. Partner is short in clubs and spades. Cross ruffing should get us to 4.

Cross-ruffing sounds like a great plan, but before we go over the cliff shouldn't we ask the opponents how they feel about this?

Margaret Reid: 3. Pard does not have much in spades or clubs. Perhaps they won't lead trumps.

And perhaps Nicole Kidman will knock on my door and ask me to run away with her. But I think the opponents have enough information to find the best lead after this auction. Still, the size of the fit might protect us.

Martin Eggins: 3. I'm reading partner as having 1-4-5-3.

David Hester: 3. He has a goodish 6-4 and wanted to leave 2 open. Let's hope we can cross-ruff our way home.

Andrew Gordon: 3. I like my shape and fit with partner's hearts. There is some risk to this bid, especially if partner bids 4, say over a 4 bid by EW.

Sam Arber: 3. Partner appears to have good hand with six diamonds and four hearts, but unable to double first time with spade shortage. 3 is a free bid so shows some values, close to bidding 4.

Sartaj Hans: 3. Void diamond, two little clubs and six spades are bad features about the hand. But partner could have a powerhouse and I need to show my hearts. If partner raises to four, I will redouble.

Ian Patterson: 3. Preempt partners penalty double of 3.

This hand is from the recent Moscito vs Natural match on BridgeBase.

ª AQ © AJ7 ¨ JT65432 § K ª 4 © 62 ¨ KQ97 § AQJ964 ª K832 © KT4 ¨ A8 § T732 ª JT9765 © Q9853 ¨ --- § 85

NS can make 3 or 3, and EW can make 3 and 3NT (with or without the club guess). At the table, Marston passed and defended 3 for -110. This was a pickup of 3 imps when the Naturalists reached 4 doubled at the other table, failing by one trick.

The Moscito team (Sartaj Hans, Paul Marston, Ana Alonso, Luis Argerich) went on to win the match 68-19 from Fred Gitelman's Natural team.