J92 A9874 JT K93

West North East South pass 1 dbl pass 3 pass 3 pass ?

Call Award % experts % readers 4 100 47 37 4 80 32 32 3NT 40 21 29

We begin this issue with a two-part problem: first we need to work out partner's intentions, and then we need to work out if we have a good hand. About a quarter of the readers and a fifth of the experts felt that partner might be trying to keep 3NT in the picture:

Peter Robinson: 3NT. If it isn't the beginning of an advance cue-bid sequence in support of hearts, then it is must at least be suggesting the possibility of a 3NT contract. So it's now or never – easier since the alternatives are not all that palatable.

Sam Arber: 3NT. Hope he has Qx.

Emil Battista: 3NT. J92 Looks like half a stopper to me.

Steve Stein: 3NT. Hoping partner has a partial spade stopper. With lots of other hands, he'll bid again.

Peter Barker: 3NT. Not quite sure where partner is going, but I'll own up to some sort of spade holding. I haven't got a four-card minor, and my hearts aren't good enough to bid again.

Roger Yandle: 3NT. Is partner indicating a strong hand with a long minor but only a partial spade stopper? Or no spade stopper at all? Alternatively this could be a cue bid supporting hearts. As long as she isn't expecting me to stop spades by myself we should be OK! Otherwise it could end in disaster!

It is certainly easier to bid 3NT here if you believe 3 showed five...

Sartaj Hans: 3NT. I prefer the style where (especially for a passed hand) the 3 bid promises five hearts. Given my aversion to bidding non-suits, I cannot see any other alternative.

... but the majority felt that our fifth heart ruled out 3NT as a possible contract:

Julie Rhodes: 4. I have an extra heart and do not regard J92 as an adequate spade stopper.

Damo Nair: 4. Cannot quite bring myself to try 4.

Nigel Kearney: 4. I have an extra heart and nothing else to say.

Tania Black: 4. If partner was looking for 3NT I cannot help.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. No, I dont have a max.

Dan Baker: 4. Usually the cue is three-card support with extras. After a jump, surely a new suit by aggressor would be forcing.

Cor Lof: 4. I am not bidding my hand twice; a club control would be too much for this balanced hand.

There was some disagreement about the strength of our hand. In fact, a few readers felt that 3 was already too much:

Martyn Rew: 4. Remind me, please – why did I bid 3? Can I have the hand back that I had when I made that bid?

Alex Kemeny: 4. I don't agree with the 3 bid. Nine-loser hand, so 2 was enough. The result is that I now have this awful dilemma.

Tony Treloar: 4. Depends a lot on style here. I think 3 was a stretch on the first round, but partner is showing something a little special here so may as well cue below game.

Having moderated this column for over 20 years now, I can say with some confidence that 3 would score at least 60% of the votes if we presented the previous round as a bidding forum problem. Here's some supporting evidence from the expert panel, one of whom felt that they were actually good for their previous bidding:

Phil Gue: 4. I can't have much better for my 3 bid as a passed hand, so I'm showing my club control.

Sophie Ashton: 4. I feel that 3 was a good description of my hand – I don't have great shape but I do have two good cards for partner.

Frank Stewart: 4. The jump to 3 was certainly reasonable, but I have nothing left over that would suggest cooperating with a slam hunt.

Lavings commented that the 3 bid would only be right if partner was a solid bidder, and Klinger described 3 as a stretch, but neither of them objected to the bid.

About a third of the readers agreed that they were good enough to cooperate in a slam try:

Carmel Gammal: 4. Control showing. P seems to be very strong by lack of EW bidding, so keeps options open.

Robert Black: 4. Cue bid. Not ideal, but partner seems interested in slam.

Ronald Lokers: 4. Cue. After the leading pass, my hand is already limited, so no need to sign off in 4. Partner obviously asks for more information.

Neil Silverman: 4. I certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, and if partner has slam interest, seems automatic to show my control.

Hans van Vooren: 4. I suppose this is a slam try, so I'm going to oblige by showing my club control. Hard to imagine what partner has, as East hasn't raised the spades.

David Matthews: 4. Is 3NT an option with my half stopper? I don't think so, as partner doubled the 1 opener. We are on the way to 4 so I will mention my club control.

Nicoleta Giura: 4. No, I don't have a stopper, but I have a club control.

John R Mayne: 4. This hand is light on points, but it's all working. If I have to correct clubs to hearts at some point, that's not the worst result in the world.

Peter Vlas: 4. Unclear if partner is cueing or just asking for a spade stop. But I'll give him what I have.

The full deal, from Buenos Aires:

Q76 KJ3 AKQ54 A2      AK1085      Q10      863      QJ6 43 652 972 108754 J92 A9874 J10 K93

In the Mixed quarter-final, Korbel bid 4 and Chen bid 3NT. In the Open, Tarnovski and Zimmermann bid 4, Versace didn't face the problem (his partner didn't bid 3) and Moss avoided the problem by opening 1. All roads led to 4.

6 AT83 KQJT4 KQT

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

Call Award % experts % readers 2 100 42 31 2NT 90 32 31 2 60 11 6 3NT 50 5 8 Pass 40 11 24

We'll start this problem with the most extreme answer, which received just one panel vote, but a remarkable 8% of the reader vote:

Phil Gue: 3NT. In the long distant past the 1NT response was always a negative hand, but not today. What else is there, but 3NT?

It is quite unusual for a bid to receive this many reader votes without a single comment, so Phil's answer is left to shoulder the whole burden of justifying this choice. I don't hate it, although I take offence at his "long distant past" comment; I was actually playing in the days when 1NT was considered the correct response on a balanced Yarborough. Today, as he correctly points out, no one chooses 1NT without some values.

Taking a more restrained approach:

Peter Robinson: 2NT. I don't regard 1NT as a particularly strong bid here, but the hand is very suitable. Lots of sympathy for those who go straight to 3NT – not because of points, but because of the honour combinations. It could be one of those hands where you either make 9 or 7.

David Matthews: 2NT. I am better than minimum so I think an invite is suitable.

Dan Baker: 2NT. I may regret this if partner has a dead minimum and decided stretching for 1NT was better than bidding a three-card minor. But 2 seems like an overstatement.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2NT. If max, I bring about seven tricks, so with two partner should raise.

Hans van Vooren: 2NT. Not sure how comfortable partner was when bidding 1NT, so I'm going to ask him. For an immediate 3NT, I would like to have another minor suit Ace instead of a King.

John R Mayne: 2NT. Passing is far too cowardly. We'll find out if partner has one stopper or two in short order – maybe while going down.

Peter Vlas: 2NT. Semi-positive answer from partner needs to be rewarded.

Neil Silverman: 2NT. Sound like partner has five spades so could be a little light but with no bidding by opponents there is certainly a chance 3NT might make. My feel even if we go down, my opponents at other table will match our result.

Nicoleta Giura: 2NT. Surely we don't want to miss a vul game.

Roger Yandle: 2NT. With my chunky suits I don't need much help from pard especially since I'm sitting behind the opener.

Nigel Kearney: 2NT. My hand has plenty of tricks and is worth an invite. 2 here is weak and to play, or should be.

Despite Nigel's comment that 2 is weak and to play, nearly half of the panel opted for 2 as the perfect compromise – not too aggressive, but still giving partner a chance to make a move:

Ken Berry: 2. I hate this bid, but none I like.

Martyn Rew: 2. Partner might be offering a spade stop, but one may not be enough.

Barbara Whitmee: 2. Was going to pass 1NT but recently partner has gone down three times with only one stopper opposite my singleton. I would need him to have A, A and say K. Not likely as he didn't open and didn't jump in his answer to my double. He doesn't have four hearts so should have some diamonds.

Emil Battista: 2. What is the problem? :)

Damo Nair: 2. So, I am a couple of points light for the 2 bid. But, the playing strength is great. Besides it's after the opener.

Damo sums up the situation nicely: this is not the hand we would normally like to have for this sequence, but given the knowledge that partner has some values, it's the safest way forward.

Lastly, a quarter of the readers are taking the timid route:

Robert Black: Pass. A serious underbid if partner has good spades as he implies.

Steve Stein: Pass. Any bid feels pushy, despite the strength

Tony Treloar: Pass. I just can't see nine tricks across any sort of normal 1NT response.

Tania Black: Pass. Might make overtricks, but partner is limited.

Cor Lof: Pass. North has passed so a game is not likely without a fit.

Carmel Gammal: Pass. P indicates 6-9 points, and the spade suit is over them, so may only be able to count on one stopper.

Peter Barker: Pass. Partner can't support my suits and game looks very unlikely. I will settle for any making part score.

Julie Rhodes: Pass. Partner has spades stopped and we have the other three suits covered. Partner is a passed hand so game does not seem likely.

Alex Kemeny: Pass. Partner needs a perfect maximum to make 3NT.

In closing, one of the above readers sent me an email commenting on the fact that the correct double-dummy action on the actual deal often gets a low score (for example, the Pass on this board, where you cannot make 3NT on competent defence). It's worth reiterating that we only show the full deal because some of the readers like to see it, not to justify the winning answer. The fact that a bid works on one deal does not make it a good bid, and the actual deal never has any influence on the awards (in fact, the awards are mostly decided by Fraser and Phil, who don't even see the full deal until they receive their magazines in the mail).

However, it is also worth noting that while Pass is a successful double dummy choice on the actual deal, so are 2 and 2NT (they are both making contracts). 2 and 2NT also have the merit of getting you a good double dummy result on other deals where partner has a better hand. So the double dummy analysis of the actual deal actually supports the decision to bid 2 or 2NT (as irrelevant as that is).

The full deal, also from the quarter-final:

QJ753 QJ4 7 9532      108      965      983      AJ874 AK942 K72 A652 6 6 A1083 KQJ104 KQ10

Versace and Tarnovski both bid 2, and raised partner's 2NT to 3NT. For Korea, Roh passed 1NT, while Argentina's Lucena went straight to 3NT. All three pairs in 3NT were allowed to make, due to three different defensive errors. One East led the A and switched to the K; amusingly, almost any other continuation (not a low spade) would have defeated the contract, stranding the declarer in the South hand.

The other two tables led a low spade. At one table, the spade went to the ten and queen, and East won the A on the first round. With no signal from partner, East guessed to cash the A, after which there was no defence. At the third table, East held up the A until the third round, allowing West to use the diamond pips to signal for a club. East played a club to West's ace, and West returned the 8 through North's jack, but East failed to overtake with the nine, leaving West on lead with no winning option.

J83 AKJ72 A7 KQT

West North East South pass pass 1 dbl pass 2 ?

Call Award % experts % readers Pass 100 63 45 Dbl 70 32 27 2NT 20 5 14 2 10 0 14

This one is an excellent problem, because it comes up so often. I have a strong opinion: I have passed much stronger hands than this one in this auction, and I was shocked to see so many world-class players choose to re-enter the auction.

Fortunately we do have a tiny amount of tolerance for the two unbid suits, and a robust heart suit, so the following choice is not totally dangerous:

Emil Battista: Dbl. 2 from partner will not disappoint.

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. Extras, and asks partner to do something intelligent.

Carmel Gammal: Dbl. Hoping p can bid 2, or push them up.

Ronald Lokers: Dbl. I'm not going to let opps play 2 uncompeted. But I'm probably going to pass on anything partner bids.

Julie Rhodes: Dbl. If partner has a defensive trick and no heart support we can probably defeat the contract. If partner is weak with heart support we will be happy in 2.

David Matthews: Dbl. Showing my strong hand.

However, I don't think the hand is anywhere near this choice:

Tony Treloar: 2NT. Can't give up on game yet in this auction. Most descriptive bid.

Peter Barker: 2NT. I have the shape and points for 2NT. And from the bidding partner has a hold in spades.

This minority choice looks ok at a first glance:

Peter Robinson: 2. I feel as if I have to do something. That's about as much optimism as I can muster. I would expect partner to have raised hearts with very little.

Ken Berry: 2. I hate myself for this bid but I have spent too long thinking so won't pass.

Nicoleta Giura: 2. It does look a bit like a six-card suit. Second choice is Pass.

The problem with bidding 2 is that it doesn't have any significant advantage over double. If playing in 2 is acceptable, then partner will choose 2 over your double (unless they have four spades, in which case 2 might be better than 2). If partner happens to bid 2 over the double, then that's the time for you to decide whether you want to bid 2, but I'd still vote against it – I'd expect partner to have chosen 2 with two hearts and four diamonds.

In short, I can't see any upside in bidding with this hand, and Pass is an easy winner:

Roger Yandle: Pass. Am I supposed to bid something here? If so, I'm at a loss to work out what!

John R Mayne: Pass. Competition is based on shape and if we are +50 when we should be +110, I'll take the heat for lose two. But the bad results from further action are no fun at all and I'm good where I stand.

Neil Silverman: Pass. Feels right to defend as opposed to playing in some seven-card fit.

Cor Lof: Pass. I have more defense than offense, we are not likely to have a fit.

Peter Vlas: Pass. If partner has nothing this is it. If he has anything I will hear from him.

Hans van Vooren: Pass. If partner keeps passing, we're unlikely to have a game somewhere. I think we're more likely to go plus when defending, and on a bad day, bidding again may turn out to be disastrous.

Damo Nair: Pass. Not sure what to do. North did pass twice. 2NT opposite nothing will be big trouble.

Tania Black: Pass. Partner's two passes are not encouraging.

Barbara Whitmee: Pass. Should take the opps down with AK, 2 ruffed by partner, A and KQ.

Dan Baker: Pass. Trust partner to figure me for a big hand if 2 is passed around, and bid if we have a fit.

Nigel Kearney: Pass. This should be unanimous and I hardly ever say that. But it probably won't be.

On the the full deal, from the semi-final, South did not even hold the ten of clubs, but some Souths still took action over 2:

9654 108 J8643 32      AQ7      964      KQ92      A84 K102 Q53 105 J10765 J83 AKJ72 A7 KQ9

Three players faced this auction. Bardhan passed, collecting 100. Percario doubled, and his partner was one off in 2. Madala bid 2NT, also one off.

J8 A9742 KJ93 A2

West North East South 1 ?

Call Award % experts % readers Dbl 100 53 31 Pass 70 37 29 2 50 11 40

I chose this hand for the forum after being surprised by the auctions from the World Teams quarter-final, in which two players made a takeout double. I would never have found that choice myself, but our panel were totally on board with it:

Damo Nair: Dbl. I'll pass 2. If that gets doubled I'll try 2.

Peter Robinson: Dbl. I'm OK with secondary support in a minor.

Nigel Kearney: Dbl. It won't always work but I slightly prefer double to pass. 2 is very wrong.

Emil Battista: Dbl. Pass is wimpy, 2 at unfavourable vulnerability is for he men. Double is about right.

Hans van Vooren: Dbl. Too crappy a suit to bid a unilateral 2, but this is likely to be my last chance to try for a vulnerable game. Partner may even bid some number of notrumps instead of clubs.

Nicoleta Giura: Dbl. I don't like it much and I will bid 2 over 2.

Tony Treloar: Dbl. Will convert clubs to diamonds. Don't like overcalling hearts with such a bad suit at the vulnerability.

I do need to point out that doubling and converting clubs to diamonds does not show this hand, or anything even remotely similar to it – see Dan Baker's comment below. If you choose to double on this hand, you are committing to play in whatever suit partner chooses (although, as Damo pointed out, you may get a chance to run if 2 is doubled).

Matthew Thomson: Dbl. If partner chooses 2 that's life (you have to pass 2).

While I wasn't expecting so many votes for double, I certainly do agree with the panellists' thoughts on bidding 2:

Andrew Robson: Dbl. Definitely not 2, begging to go for a number.

Sophie Ashton: Dbl. My hearts are absolutely not good enough for an overcall.

Michael Ware: Dbl. Risky, but it is risky to pass as well and less risky than the awful 2 bid.

Sartaj Hans: Dbl. This is the Meckstroth-Rodwell style, something I like to aspire to. My frequent teammates Michael Whibley and Nabil Edgtton would prefer to overcall 2 as they hate losing the fifth heart. They can enjoy their adventures and I can enjoy mine.

Nevertheless, 40% of the readers were prepared to take their chances in the Axxxx suit:

Tania Black: 2. I know that I should have six, but double shows only four!

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. If agreed, I'd prefer double, but I do want to bid (at least once).

Ronald Lokers: 2. The suit itself is bad but after 3 by West partner is never going to get involved in the hand.

Roger Yandle: 2. Vul at IMPs I'm stretching but I'm fully aware that this could end in disaster.

Robert Black: 2. Would like another heart, preferably an honour. If I passed and partner can find a bid we will not be stopping in 2.

Peter Barker: 2. Yes, I know we are red and they are green, and partner could reasonably expect a better heart suit. But the hand shape is wrong for a double. Pass is a reasonable (better?) option, but partner is not a passed hand and I'm feeling lucky.

Ken Berry: 2. I know that Ron Klinger suit quality (number of cards in a suit plus number of honours) demands I pass, but who follows good advice all the time.

Well, Ron does put a lot of work into writing all those books, and you took the time to read them. I feel like bidding 2 is unfair to both of you.

Ron Klinger: Pass. Suit-quality for overcalls is still a useful concept.

I'll try to learn from the expert comments advising me to double, but my heart still lies with the 'safe' choice:

Dan Baker: Pass. Might chance a double if we play equal-level conversion, but this isn't prototype shape for it even then (usually that would have four hearts and longer diamonds). Matchpoints I might stick my neck out with a 2 overcall.

John R Mayne: Pass. 2 could pretty clearly work out and there is a place to run, but I can't bring myself to bid the five-bagger and the 2 response from partner is no fun either.

Peter Vlas: Pass. 2 requires better hearts, and for me the hand is unsuitable for double.

David Matthews: Pass. No need to risk a substantial penalty at this juncture by overcalling 2. Double is an option, but what do I do after 2 by partner?

Cor Lof: Pass. Not the ideal shape for a double and hearts are not biddable on the two-level. Let's hope partner can act.

Julie Rhodes: Pass. Suit quality is too poor to bid 2 when vulnerable. If partner can re-open, then we can bid it.

Neil Silverman: Pass. Suit too weak to bid vul, and double can lead to other problems. It's probably not going all pass, so likely getting another chance to bid.

Alex Kemeny: Pass. The disciplined action.

The full deal, also from the quarter-final:

94 53 Q10764 K1085      A765      1086      85      J963 KQ1032 KQJ A2 Q74 J8 A9742 KJ93 A2

Martel bid 2, while Musaoglu, Herbst and Zia doubled. West's 3 ended all auctions, so our choice turned out to be irrelevant.

K J6542 – AK98732

West North East South 2 3 ?

Call Award % experts % readers 6 100 58 27 5 70 11 14 4 60 11 13 4 60 11 13 4 40 5 17 5 40 5 5 5 30 0 5 4NT 10 0 6

The top vote on this wild hand went to 6, but I'm going to start with the bid I chose (which, luckily, is also the bid my partner chose):

David Appleton: 5. Exclusion, but, if I have my way, 5 over this shows a poor hand, not denying KQ10xxx. Also, as the next guy is likely to have spades, helping partner defeat those is OK, too.

Hans van Vooren: 5. Exclusion. I am rather interested in keycards... if partner has two, we can bid an easy 6. If partner has one, we can choose to defend 6, or press on to 6 to avoid a potential double swing. Showing my clubs could possibly help with the latter decision, and using Exclusion has the disadvantage that the opponents also know that we know what we are doing. Defending 7x for one down is distinctly worse than making 5 +1. I still think using Exclusion is the best option: (a) partner may not be able to do a lot with the information that I have clubs, (b) knowing how high we can go is a distinct advantage, while the opponents are still guessing, (c) missing the AK and K, the opponents may not want to compete all the way to 7.

David Johnson : 5. Is 14-30 Exclusion in AB Standard?

David Matthews: 5. This is Voidwood and slam interest in my system and I leave it to partner.

Julie Rhodes: 5. Void key card ask. If partner shows two key cards excluding diamonds we can make 6. If only one then 5 will probably make.

As Appleton pointed out, he and I play amended responses, with first step showing a bad hand (typically a hand that has been weakened by the subsequent auction, such as x-KQ10xxx-Kxx-xxx). There are also many pairs who simply play step responses (zero, one, one+queen, two, two+queen). However, whatever methods you play, I can't see how 5 will get you a worse result than 6 – in fact, it may be a bit harder for EW to double 6 if you get there via Exclusion Blackwood.

There were some other votes for an ace ask:

Nigel Kearney: 4NT. Exclusion will get us too high so I'll bid slam opposite two key cards and hope they are the right ones.

Martyn Rew: 4NT. One keycard response and I stop at 5. Zero keycard response, I stop at 5 and say 'crap'. Two keycards, I bid 6.

I'm not convinced that 5 will be a disaster opposite zero keycards (especially if the AK drop in one round). This next group also don't seem too concerned:

Cor Lof: 5. Let the opponents have the last guess. Perhaps 5 makes, and against 6 I have a good lead in clubs.

Barbara Whitmee: 5. They will have to go to 6 and I will double and lead ace and king of clubs. West could have a long spade hand and they play in 5 undoubled.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5. partner, do you have two of the three top honours?

I'm not sure that's what this bid shows in this auction, but it's unlikely to matter much.

Rather than taking a unilateral stab, this group felt that the ace-king-seventh suit was worth a mention:

Ken Berry: 4. I suspect I will have to bid hearts next time but don't want a heart lead!

Tania Black: 4. I hope that partner knows that it is a suit, not a void.

Alexander Cook: 4. I need to get my lead-director in case West bids spades.

Damo Nair: 4. Lead director. North will know what to lead when it gets to 6 or 7 diamonds or spades. What's wrong with bidding a suit headed by he AK? I will bid up to 6 given a chance.

Alexander Shchennikov: 4. We can safely bidding till 5, but will we have other opportunity to show the club suit? It can be useful, if opponents get the contract.

Actually, if partner somehow ends up on lead (presumably against spades) we definitely don't want a club lead, so showing the clubs will not be at all useful if the opponents win the contract.

Peter Barker: 5. I don't want to own up to the opps of our heart fit given my spade and diamond holding. 5 both eats up bidding space and is lead directional if West bids spades.

Roger Yandle: 5. it looks like the opps have got a double fit in spades and diamonds possibly making slam. I'll try and make life difficult for them. If they double I'll run to 5 hopefully muddying the waters even more.

However, the top score goes to the group who reached double-dummy par (sort of) in one bid:

Peter Robinson: 6. Crude, I know, but I'm content to make them guess.

Tony Treloar: 6. Doesn't need much to go right and good luck to the opponents to figure out the right action.

Carmel Gammal: 6. If clubs can be set up, there could be one spade loser

John R Mayne: 6. It is time, my friends, for this auction to conclude. I'm all for a variety of strategies with hands like this, but here we're on lead, we don't want a club if we're not, and we want to minimize room. Some day we'll be -50 when four is the limit their way, but I view the second choice of 7 as pretty distant - 6 ought to do what is required.

Emil Battista: 6. Let them guess. Defending 7x will not faze.

Alex Kemeny: 6. May make opposite A and nothing else.

Peter Vlas: 6. Possible make with A from partner. I don't expect two aces from him, so 7 is out.

Neil Silverman: 6. Seems a little like a guessing game. We might be cold for either 5 or 6 hearts and who knows what they can make. Here i know if it goes 6s on my left I can double for diamond lead.

Dan Baker: 6. There are hands where 5 is the limit for both sides (partner has KQxxxx and club shortness, for example). But 6 is nearly cold opposite AKxxxx, has a legitimate chance opposite Axxxxx, and might even make opposite less if they don't find the spade lead. Walking the dog just gives them time to find their spade fit.

Ronald Lokers: 6. This will probably make if partner holds AKxxxx or even Axxxxx, and if partner doesn't have the A it might be a good takeout of 6 or 6. Also will put a lot of pressure on opps.

Rainer Herrmann: 6. The idea is to double 6 by West.

The full deal, from Josh Tomlin:

5 KQ10873 7543 106      10976432      A      AJ2      Q4 AQJ8 9 KQ10986 J5 K J6542 — AK98732

The cards lie very well for 5 if you can get there from the East seat, so technically 6 is the par contract. In reality, I don't see East-West reaching a making contract if North-South get to 5.

Thanks again for being a part of our forum. The April questions are available here, and the February magazine should have arrived by the time you read this.

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. All of the people who have taken up the offer so far have gone on to renew their subscriptions. If you're on the fence, please know that the magazine could really use your support. SUBSCRIBE HERE.