We'll start this month by introducing the newest member of our expert panel, who was the only member of the panel to find the winning bid on this deal:

Sophie Ashton: 4. 5-5 come alive. Voids are very valuable. Partner is acting opposite a passed hand, so they have to have a good hand for their double. What game am I making? likely 4 is the easiest, so that's what I bid, despite the inevitable bad break.

Sophie's one of the new generation of experts, young and aggressive, though I'm not sure if she'll be able to eradicate the old "6-5 come alive" standard.

One of her very regular partners was close behind:

Sartaj Hans: 3. In my experience, in such a situation, we have the feeling that East may be psyching. But, in real life, usually East has four or more hearts and West is short. Thus the underbid of 3, keeping alive the option of partner raising to game. Partner will value his fourth trump highly.

No one outside the Hans-Ashton household bid that high, although the majority choice of Double does not necessarily rule out a game contract:

Larry Cohen: Dbl. Whether or not East is playing games, I expect the opponents to bid clubs next and then I will bid hearts. I like that plan better than guessing how many hearts to bid now (I am too strong to bid only 2).

Rainer Herrmann: Dbl. No number of hearts look right to me for the moment.

Tony Treloar: Dbl. Shows hearts and values. We could still easily have a heart game if partner has a normal takeout double.

Peter Vlas: Dbl. Don't expect it to stand, but I dont want to bid 2 or a mysterious 1NT.

David Johnson: Dbl. Expose the psych.

Cor Lof: Dbl. I do not trust East's bidding, maybe a baby psych.

John R Mayne: Dbl. They might not be stealing – partner might have a strong balanced hand – but we should land well from here.

At the table, partner didn't have a textbook takeout double, or four hearts, or a strong balanced hand, or any extra values at all. And East had a real 1 bid. Yet we still make 4, which gives you an idea how powerful our hand is. However, the underbid of 2 shares the top vote from the panel:

Dan Baker: 2. Even if East isn't screwing around, this might be our best place with the known bad break.

Alexander Cook: 2. Natural, showing five hearts.

Damo Nair: 2. North surely has some hearts. I'll wait and see what happens. East could be messing around with a big club fit.

On the actual deal we probably will get a chance to bid again, as East may want to show his club support (even if he is on the lighter side for a three-level bid). This will give us a chance to show our diamond suit, which will ensure we reach the better partscore, but I don't think it will help us reach game.

The largest group of readers, almost half of the field, took the ultra-conservative route:

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. Have to show these values. Later might be (a lot) worse.

David Matthews: 2. I have some points and must bid after partner's double. Points look to be evenly split and hopefully we can play a partscore. If partner bids spades I will raise.

Hans van Vooren: 2. I may do some more bidding later on, but for now, this seems to be fairly straightforward.

Ken Berry: 2. I want to show something, but this is one of my weaker lead directing bids.

Todd Holes: 2. If I need to bid 3 later I will.

Tania Black: 2. Keeping it low and safe with a five card-suit. Where, apart from with West, are the clubs?

The missing clubs are with East. He has only had one bid so far, so he gave priority to the major suit.

Robert Black: 2. Not ideal. We may have a nine-card heart fit.

Peter Robinson: 2. Simple free bid showing values to compete for the partscore. No need to distort things here.

Alex Kemeny: 2. Yes, partner's double was probably focussed on the majors, but I have enough values to stick a bid in here.

Steve Stein: 2. Taking a conservative position in view of possible misfit.

Emil Battista: 2. All other bids below 2 have more flaws than my slight overbid.

No one on the expert panel found that choice, or this one:

Phil Davis: Pass. Bid next round.

Martyn Rew: Pass. I can't see the bidding stopping at 1 and I can come in with diamonds next bid.

Mick McAuliffe: Pass. I changed my mind three times on this as we could well have a decent heart fit, but it looks like a partscore battle. I want to see what happens next. Surely if I later bid 2 (if that seems reasonable), it is to play.

Ronald Lokers: Pass. Looks like West is very short in hearts and I expect him to rebid clubs. If that is passed out to me I will bid diamonds, but for now I'll wait and see what happens.

Zbych Bednarek: Pass. Over the expected 2 from West, I will bid 2.

Tom Estenson: Pass. Who's East? I think his 1 bid is based on a handful of clubs. If it goes 2-pass-pass, I'll bid 2. Don't want to bid diamonds as I hardly want them led.

I couldn't bear to give 60% of the readers a zero score, so I've upgraded the awards for both of these choices very heavily, giving the passers the benefit of the doubt that they will make a wise choice on the next round.

The full deal, from Paul Lavings at the Illawarra Teams Championship:

AJ102 KQ10 K105 1074 Q864 7 A32 KQJ52 53 J964 Q6 A9863 K97 A8532 J9874 —

Double dummy, we can make game in either of our suits, even though partner only has three-card heart support for both. At the 14-table Teams event, no one made ten tricks in hearts, and the only pair to bid game were doubled and went three off.

East's 1 bid suggests that there will be a trump loser in 4, but the only other losers are two diamond tricks (West's opening reveals the position of the queen of spades). If you concede the two diamond losers at the first available opportunity, you can control the hand even if South is forced to ruff three times. Declarer's biggest problem is if he is forced to ruff four times, in a position like this after East ruffs the third diamond:

AJ KQ10 — — Q8 7 — J5 — J96 — 98 K A8 J9 —

If the defenders lead a fourth round of clubs in this position, declarer takes the ruff in the North hand, while discarding the king of spades. When the jack of spades is led from dummy, East has no defence. If he ruffs with the nine, South overruffs and draws trumps. If East discards, South can ruff low and then score the top three trumps separately.

This problem produced the closest vote we have ever had, with five votes each for the top two options, and four votes each for the next two. Two groups were trying for slam, while the other two were insisting on slam.

Andrew Robson: 6. It could be a four or six hand depending on the diamond finesse so I may as well go all-in. Relying on E-W to have ten clubs.

Tony Treloar: 6. EW's bidding suggests that partner has a singleton club at most. Partner is likely to have enough of the missing important cards to make slam a good chance.

Emil Battista: 6. A bit wimpy. Just in case partner does have a club. Parner can finesse West for any missing Spade honours. And East for K.

Alex Kemeny: 6. I doubt the opps have bid to this level with only nine clubs. I have wonderful cards. If we win trick 1 or 2, I am very confident we will make 6.

Peter Robinson: 6. Based on previous forums, I don't think that 5NT asks the questions I want answered (for bidding seven). I'm OK with spades as the trump suit. Maybe a 5 cue bid would be better, but 6 shows values too.

That's correct Peter; there was a time when 5NT was mostly used as a trump honour enquiry, but this use largely disappeared after the spread of keycard Blackwood. Today 5NT is almost always used to get to the best small slam if there is more than one possible strain. That doesn't totally rule out a grand slam though:

Tim Cope: 5NT. I am prepared to believe the bidding around the table which suggests that there are more than 40 points in the pack. We can use 5NT as the standard pick-a-slam bid, which will also leave room open for partner to bid 6 if they have a void, over which a bid of 7 would be appropriate.

Hans van Vooren: 5NT. Pick-a-slam, trusting the opponents to have at least ten clubs between them. After 5NT, partner can bid 6 with a club void to invite the grand.

Just in case we do have two club losers, there's this option:

David Appleton: 5. Plenty of extras given 2 was not game-forcing, so we suggest more. I'd assume 2 was unlimited, so even a tasty grand is possible if partner can cue clubs.

Ron Smith: 5. I see visions of 7 but will pass 5.

Rainer Herrmann: 5. Agreeing spades.

Peter Barker: 5. I want to explore a slam in spades but I want to avoid the risk (a slight one) that we both have a doubleton club. 5 gets the message across.

Our final panel option is Pass, which all the panellists agreed was forcing, although not everyone agreed on what should happen next:

Dave Beauchamp: Pass. Not clear whether we want to defend or bid on. If partner doubles will defend.

Patrick Huang: Pass. Will pull to 5 if he doubles, but cue 5 if he bids 5. 7 is in the picture if North can cue 6 in return.

Cor Lof: Pass. I hope that partner will do the right thing and take my pass as forcing

John R Mayne: Pass. I view this sequence as forcing, and I'll honour a double.

None of the panellists found the following choice:

Roger Yandle: 6. It looks like partner has either got a good hand or extra spade length. He should be short in clubs so slam should be a good option. I'm hoping this is choose between diamonds and spades.

Ronald Lokers: 6. Pick a slam (obviously I'll correct 6 to 6).

Zbych Bednarek: 6. Partner must have shortness in club, let him make a choice of 6 or 6.

6 has some fairly significant disadvantages compared with 5, but it can't be any worse than 6, so I've given it a huge promotion.

There were a significant number of reader votes (and one panel vote) for 5, mainly out of fear about the meaning of 5:

Michael Ware: 5. I bid 5-over-5 last weekend and it was wrong, but I still haven't learnt. If 5 was a cue agreeing spades, I would bid that, but I think it is natural.

Peter Vlas: 5. It's probably slam but I don't know how to get there in a responsible way. But I prefer to bid and hope partner can give the last push.

Tom Estenson: 5. I expect we might be on for 6, it mostly depends on how many clubs partner has. I'd like to bid 5 to tell partner I've got the reds but I'm not sure that message would be clear.

Finally, one more minority choice:

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Dbl. Bidding on feels like magic-hand-bidding. Yes, partner may have the essential three cards, but three out of three is unlikely and West needs only one to have 5 go off.

Mick McAuliffe: Dbl. I can't guarantee we can take them off three doubled, but I also can't be sure we won't lose three tricks. I'd rather take what looks like a solid positive score. West looks like they are raising on shape rather than HCPs.

Martyn Rew: Dbl. Opps going down is more sure than a five-level contract for us.

David Matthews: Dbl. We may well be making 5 or better but I am not exactly sure where to go. So I will just tell partner that I have points and see what his next action is.

Todd Holes: Dbl. Making 5 or 5 is not assured. I'll take the plus.

Just like the previous problem, here we need to decide about slam without being sure which suit to play in. Unlike the last problem, here the choice to bid slam is a fairly easy one, producing a significant majority vote (58%) for the afore-mentioned 5NT:

Marc Smith: 5NT. This should suggest only three hearts. Blackwood doesn't seem to help as I will not know which suit to choose. Better to make +1460 in six of the right suit than -100 in seven of the wrong one.

Tony Treloar: 5NT. Hard to see a better bid that'll get us to the right slam.

Dan Baker: 5NT. Pick a slam. If partner has enough for 4, it's hard to imagine going down in six.

Larry Cohen: 5NT. I don't think we can sensibly reach seven, so let's just have partner pick a slam. Bidding 5 (which surely will get votes) doesn't accomplish anything, because we won't know if partner has QJ10x-J10xx-KQx-xx or QJ10x-J10xx-Kx-Axx.

5 did get a few votes:

Andrew Robson: 5. Likely ending in 6 but let's make a slammy noise and test the reaction opposite.

Paul Lavings: 5. My choice would have been 5 over 4. At my second turn I generally prefer to bid what I should have bid on my first turn so 5 is the best I can do.

Steve Stein: 5. Hoping this allows partner to make room for the possibility that I don't have four hearts. If I have to ruff a club with one of the top heart honors, it may not end well.

Hans van Vooren: 5. A lot of room for misunderstandings here. Let's keep the ball rolling with 5 and see what happens.

David Matthews: 5. I am interested in slam so must make a try. Partner may well have 5+ Hearts to the J and K.

Peter Barker: 5. I need to make a slam try.

Roger Yandle: 5. is partner just showing a game going hand with both majors or a stronger hand with 5+? I'm going with the latter. In which case slam should be on.

Damo Nair: 5. This or 6. I hope this is construed as a general slam try in hearts. Also, this keeps 7 open.

Alexander Cook: 5. I am not sure if 4 is forcing.

No, 4 is not forcing; it is just following partner's request for us to pick a suit. So there were a few votes for more constructive spade bids:

Ken Berry: 5. I think I am too good for 4.

Mick McAuliffe: 5. North must have a decent hand & I assume two places to play. The problem now seems that I have a huge hand that is difficult to describe. I would think that 4 would look like a preference to play? 4NT would set Hs? 5 is "out of the box" but partner surely must bid.

Ronald Lokers: 5. Partner has hearts and spades. 4 would be an underbid.

Phillip Alder: 6. In for a cent, in for a dollar. Partner must have some useful cards for his 4 cue-bid, and I have a moose – or is it an adult kangaroo in Australia?

I think we just call it a rock. And we say "In for a penny, in for a pound," just like we say "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile." I think it takes about a century (2609 fortnights) for everyday language to adjust to metric policy.

Ronald Lel: 6. 4 shows two places to play, so partner has spades.

Cor Lof: 6. I hate to trump a club with a top honour. 4 from partner suggest both majors and enough points for slam.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 6. I need the Q and the K; everything else is a bonus. Yeah spades might be 4-1, but this looks like the optimal contract. Would bid it in practice.

Rainer Herrmann: 6. Partner can not have many points, so he should have 11 cards in the majors.

Barbara Whitmee: 6. Partner has both majors. I can ruff more clubs if our contract is spades.

Tom Estenson: 6. Partner might have some poor 4-4-2-3 with two jacks or he might be "loaded" with QJxx-Jxxx-Kx-x or such. Since this is the best hand I've had in 2024, I'll be optimistic.

6 will be fine a lot of the time (assuming it is the correct suit), but many of the panellists were hoping for more:

Sophie Ashton: 4NT. It's going to be hard to decipher this hand but let's at least give grand a go.

Frank Stewart: 4NT. Intending to bid 7 if North has an ace. I can't imagine a North hand that would cuebid 4 where at least a small slam won't be good. It's up to me to take control here since North won't cooperate with his weak trumps.

Peter Vlas: 4NT. I can hardly imagine a partner the has so little that this should be at risk. And on the off chance he has the ace of clubs...

John R Mayne: 4NT. I can't construct very many hands where partner doesn't have a bunch of hearts; if partner has four that's something close to QJ108-J1095-KQ5-Ax and it just sounds like he's got a robust heart hand. If partner has the A, we don't want to miss a grand when it's there.

Peter Robinson: 4NT. I presume that partner's sequence is saying he has the majors, so spades it is. Just checking on aces.

Emil Battista: 4NT. We are going places. Unless we just missed our stop!

Marc Smith's comment at the start of the problem was right on the money, but I can't give him too much credit – he's the one who gave us this problem, so he's seen the full deal. Partner held Jxxx-Jxxxx-KQ-Ax, so 7, 7 and 7NT were all excellent but 6 was not ideal.

This one isn't so much a bidding problem as a referendum. Over the years I've had a few people tell me it's normal to open 1 on a hand like this, and I suddenly realised I had the ability to do something about it. There were a few hold-outs:

Patrick Huang: 1. A matter of style. With a KQJxxx diamond suit I might open 1 and reverse into hearts. But the actual KQ87xx suit may not play well if partner has no fit in either of my red suits. I will rather take the normal route to open the higher of two touching suits.

Larry Cohen: 1. Just short of enough to bid 1-1-2 or 1-1NT-2, so I'll avoid reversing.

So, based on those two comments, this hand is the borderline – anything stronger, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

John R Mayne: 1. A straight up horse race between the 1 bidders, who will have a much more convenient rebid, and the 1 bidders, who will avoid a 5-2 in preference to a 6-3.

Tom Estenson: 1. Get the hearts in so I can bid diamonds over whatever number of spades comes back to me.

Ronald Lel: 1. Hard to show both suits otherwise.

Roger Yandle: 1. if I open 1 then what do I do if partner or opps bid 1? I'll start with 1 and then bid diamonds so many times as is appropriate!

Tania Black: 1. Not keen to reverse with just 13 HCP.

HCP have never really been a great measure of playing strength, and I'm not surprised to find the majority are happy to reverse with this powerful hand:

Tim Cope: 1. 6-5 come alive. When we reverse into hearts, and then repeat them, we are showing this type of hand.

Ron Klinger: 1. A four-loser hand is strong enough to bid the suits naturally. Replace the Q with a low diamond and I would open 1.

Phillip Alder: 1. I have only four losers, so can reverse to the four-level. Maybe even at the five-level.

Zia: 1. It will hurt me to see who mistakenly opens 1, which I find one of the most elementary errors of some experts.

For the first time on this ridiculously difficult set of problems, the readers are in sync with the panel, in almost exactly the same proportions:

Alex Kemeny: 1. With 6-5, open your longest suit almost every time.

Dan Baker: 1. This is easier if you play "jump reverses" to show a monster playing hand but not necessarily high-card strength, in which case 1 then 3 is perfect. But the extra shape is enough that I'd be willing to reverse to 2 anyway.

Peter Robinson: 1. Don't see a need to distort shape here. The hand is good enough to compete at a high level, so the hearts will get a hearing.

Todd Holes: 1. Enough shape to open the longer minor intending to reverse.

Mick McAuliffe: 1. I am happy to bid a reversal with this hand, but having said that, I would not allow us to settle in a NT contract. As a 4 loser hand, it is very powerful, but only in a suit contract.

Hans van Vooren: 1. In my experience, trying to show 10 cards without having to reverse (by opening 1) in practice rarely works out that way. On the other hand, simply opening the longest suit and awaiting developments often seems to work quite well.

Steve Stein: 1. The six-card suit before the five-card suit, even if I have to come back in at the four level. If the opponents get to 4 before my next bid, well, it wasn't our hand anyway.

That's not strictly true Steve...

Peter Vlas: 1. I know, bidding could be 1-1-pass-4 and then I have no way to describe my hand other than with 4NT. But so be it. In another bidding sequence I can show my 6-5 in a regular way.

This 4NT bid is really the key to the hand. It's unlikely that we would want to sell out to 4 before we've shown both of our suits, and the 4NT bid will allow us to do that accurately. Bidding over 4 will be far more dangerous if we open 1 and can't trust partner to choose the correct suit.

You have to admire the practicality of this veteran bidding forum competitor:

Barbara Whitmee: 1. In real life I would open 1 so my partner knows straight away that I have five in a major.

Well done; I'm always happy to give the top award to an excellent bid, even if you're just doing it for the points! Here's another who would make a different choice in real life:

Emil Battista: 1. With 12 cards missing in both black suits auction could get out of hand. Would Paul Marston/Stephen Burgess opt for 5? If this was not a bidding forum, I would start with 5.

As you probably know, I've played with both, so I can give you the answer: neither of them would consider opening 5. Paul and I have discussed the 1 vs 1 question several times, with him arguing the case for 1; he has spent most of his career playing a major-oriented canape system, so this is not a problem he would ever face in real life.

Stephen would never open 5 with a 6-5, but he would with a 7-4, and I have seen him open 6 with a 7-5. I remember every pip: AJ863-9-AKJ7542-void. The field was in 4 making an overtrick, we were two off doubled in 6. It was the first and only time I ever criticised him (after the match, of course). I don't know if he would make the same choice today, but he furiously stood by the bid at the time.

The rest of the comments were essentially identical, so I'll let Damo sum up on behalf of the field:

Damo Nair, and everyone else: 1. I think I have enough to bid the shape out.

This hand is from a problem that was submitted by Henry Dyall. I initially rejected the problem because I felt that South had misbid the hand by opening 1. Given that the opening was not completely rejected by the panel, maybe we will present Henry's original problem, with its 1 opening, at a future time.

It looks very tempting to play in the ten-trick game, but the panel majority were willing to go to the five-level to play in the fit:

Andrew Robson: 5. Almost too good for this as partner needs so little for six (eg. x-AKxxx-Axx-AQxx). Will pay off to that perfecto.

Ron Klinger: 5. The hand is far too strong for just 4. The other option is 4, but as partner is short in spades, possibly void, the risk of partner's hand being forced off with spade lead looks greater than the possibility of three losers in 5.

Zia: 5. This is a hand that if partner raises I would be thrilled. I love this hand.

Alexander Cook: 5. 4 would be a woeful underbid.

Zbych Bednarek: 5. Partner must have shortness in spades. 5 seems the only game for our side.

Steve Stein: 5. The queen of hearts is a big card, and the KJ9xx of clubs and three small spades look awfully good.

While more than half of the expert panel chose 5, that still left a healthy number of votes for the bid that was made at the table:

Tim Cope: 4. A little bit wimpish, but at least we are bidding game. Partner should be able to survive the spade force by discarding diamonds if necessary, and no guarantees that a club contract will work out better, or that a slam is possible.

Martyn Rew: 4. I expect my Q and clubs will be very helpful for partner.

Todd Holes: 4. I would rather stay a level lower than go to the five-level. Since I did not support initially, partner should expect honour-doubleton.

Mick McAuliffe: 4. If I have to bid at the four-level, I might as well bid game.

Tony Treloar: 4. Let's hope partner doesn't have to ruff too many spades.

Alex Kemeny: 4. Partner has considerable extras, so my hand is now wonderful. So bid the game we are most likely to make.

John R Mayne: 4. This might be a transfer to 4, but I'm OK with that because that will at least beat those in 3 doubled. Partner will be 1-6-3-3 enough that I'm willing to try out hearts, and sometimes the 5-2 is fine.

Hans van Vooren: 4. We may well have 10 quick tricks, but not 11. Also, it may be advantageous to have East on lead (diamonds). If it turns out that we have a heart loser, this may also be a problem in 5.

The readers have been quite conservative this month, with the top vote going to another underbid:

Robert Black: 4. An intentionally discouraging bid.

Roger Yandle: 4. East and West are passed hands and yet they've now bid to 3. I've got 3 spades so partner is definitely short and presumably strong. Still my hand isn't great so I'm going low.

Peter Vlas: 4. I bid what I have. Partner is probably very strong, but not strong enough for a strong opening, so there is a limit to what we can reach.

Peter Robinson: 4. I don't really get this. He asked me to choose a suit. The opponents' bidding suggests he's got takeout double shape. So why not do as he asked? We may well need a 5-4 fit to make our high-level contract.

Tania Black: 4. No certain heart fit so keeping it below game.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Oh shit! This is the hand you don't want to have. But it's what I have, so I make the most descriptive bid.

Dan Baker: 4. Tempting to try 4 since it's game. But if partner doesn't have extra length, I would be worried about a tap-out.

Ronald Lokers: 4. I don't want to pass out 3 doubled. Just telling partner what I have.

I don't want to pass out 3 doubled either, but there were a few who did. None of them left a comment though.

Puzzlingly, there were a few who thought that our two passes followed by a forced 4 bid would encourage partner to keep on bidding:

Emil Battista: 4. Partner will bid on.

Peter Barker : 4. Partner clearly has a big hand. 4 keeps options open as to the final contract.

David Matthews: 4. It is between 4 and 4. Partner looks to be single or void in spades and I will be able to give preference to hearts if partner continues with 4.

I think partner will call it a day after 4, given that he did not open with a game force and we haven't shown anything more than 432-32-432-65432.

We'll finish this month's column with a bit of science:

David Appleton: 3NT. Can hardly be to play. The idea is to play clubs with a fit, and if partner bids 4, then 4 has some chop.

The magazine column's moderator, Peter Smith, was not keen on this, suggesting that 3NT might be needed as natural. I'm the one who has to deal with it when David does this kind of thing at the table, but I'll leave it to the readers to decide if there is a hand that would want to play in 3NT that would not have bid 1NT earlier.

The full deal is from the 2023 Soloway at the Fall NABC:

— A9532 AK109 A1085 J10653 KJ6 Q42 Q3 AKQ74 1087 J65 64 982 Q4 873 KJ972

Andrea Manno of Italy bid 4, going two down, while the other table made a slam in clubs.

Thanks again for being a part of our forum. The June questions are available here, and the April magazine should have arrived by now.

If you aren't already a subscriber to Australian Bridge Magazine, please consider giving us a go. Our subscriptions have taken a huge hit over the COVID period, with many long-time readers giving up the game entirely. If you are an Australian participant in this column, and not an existing subscriber, we are now offering a one-off six-month trial of the magazine (three issues), for the discounted price of $30. If you're on the fence, please know that the magazine could really use your support. SUBSCRIBE HERE.