Welcome to our final forum of the year, where we announce the Readers' Race winners and our new guest expert panellist for 2017.

Our first problem is one of two submitted by George Cuppaidge, and this is the easier of the two. The hand is clearly good enough for a jump to 3, but there are obvious advantages to keeping the bidding low:

Michael Smart: 2. I'm not going to preempt us out of a club fit by rebidding 3.

Dan Baker: 2. With partner bidding my void, this is definitely not worth a jump shift (if partner had bid 1, it probably is). Worth a 3 bid, but it's better to show clubs on the way in case partner has a black two-suiter.

Wayne Somerville: 2. Maximizing my space to describe my hand. The auction is unlikely to end

Dean Eidler: 2. Need to show all our features so take it slowly. Will bid hearts over 2 preference but pass 2.

Par Ol-Mars: 2. Get a second suit into the picture, but keep it low until a fit is established. Will continue after a 2 preference.

Damo Nair: 2. I don't see the hurry. North could easily have 4 clubs

Ron Lel: 2. Not happy with the Spade void. If partner bids 2 I will raise.

Peter Vlas: 2. Not the most pleasant when partner bids your void and he will most likely bid again. Then I can show my strength

Duncan Roe: 2. Neither 1NT nor 2 reflect my HCP. Partner has promised 6 points and 4, but the points may not be in S so try to find a fit in some other suit.

David Graham : 2. I'd show a second suit to see where we can land. With a 4 loser I want to be in game at least

The risk with 2 is that partner might pass it out, but that's not automatically a bad thing:

Robert Black: 2. An underbid, but so far no fit, and no certain game

Kees Schaafsma: 2. Should this be passed, odds are 3 will also be passed.

Artur Wasiak: 2. The main danger is that partner will pass 2 with 3 clubs and singleton diamond (and we will find the worse partscore). However, it is not sufficient reason not to show what I have.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. Since we seem to have the auction to ourselves I choose to keep maximum room to exchange information. Next round I will try to find a forcing bid to maximise information from partner. In the event he uses FSF we have all the room available to determine strain and level. Should he pass 2, we are probably in a good spot (as I expect a correction with 2-3 in the minors)

Derek Pocock: 2. Hand has not improved by partner's bid so will take it slowly.

Julian Foster: 2. I normally play this as forcing but I imagine it isn't in AB standard. But I still think it's best - if partner passes, it's hard to think we've really missed anything.

I play a new suit by opener as forcing in all of my partnerships (when not playing Gazzilli) but that agreement is far from standard, and I think virtually unknown outside Australia. There are two advantages of the old-fashioned method: being able to bail in two of a minor on a misfit, and (more importantly) more meaningful rebids by responder (since his bids are voluntary). Still, the modern Aussie has moved to forcing... not that this is necessarily a "modern" treatment:

Tim Bourke: 2. This is why I have played 2 as natural forcing in this auction since the early 1970s.

As previously mentioned, there is also another systemic way to deal with this problem (also from the 1970s):

Andrew Robson: 2. I play 1NT here as Gazzilli but that's another thing altogether.

You can read more about Gazzilli in the August issue of Australian Bridge Magazine, page 23.

Timothy Wright: 2. We could have anything between a misfit and a slam. Especially with a void opposite partner's suit, going low makes sense.

Nigel Kearney: 2. Good problem. 2 may be the wrong spot if partner passes. 3 makes it hard to investigate strain or get to 3NT. 3 could take us too high. People respond very light now so I prefer to go low.

Gary Hyett: 2. Not good enough for 3. If there is more bidding we should be OK.

3 looks wild to me, but a third of the readers went that way, as well as three experts:

Michael Ware: 3. A good example of why 2 should be forcing :-) Too good a hand to not GF. I don't mind 2NT 18-19, but it seems unnecessary when I have good alternative.

Paul Lavings: 3. I would like to bid a forcing 2 and then 3. Would prefer the style where 2 is almost forcing and the jump to 3 is a mini-splinter, to judge games and slams accurately.

Ron Klinger: 3. Only 17 HCP, but powerful diamonds and only 3 losers. The risk of landing too high is offset by the chance of finding a good slam.

Emil Battista: 3. 2NT Appeals - protects K but conveys message that hand is more balance AND includes at least ONE spades

Phil Hocking: 3. A four loser hand in Diamonds or Clubs if Partner has a fit so bidding at the 2 level without knowing Partner's strength could miss out on game.

Charles Scholl: 3. A little shy on high points, but with only 5 losers anything less is pusillanimous.

Ian McCance: 3. a prime hand. Doesn't need much for 3NT, even if misfit

Brad Johnston: 3. Even with this misfit this hand feels too strong to just bid 2m. I'm not sure what major's correct, but it'll be hard to get clubs into the picture if I rebid 3.

Tim Trahair: 3. Forcing North to bid again. He may bid NT or bid 3 in which case we can explore further. Slam may be on.

Margaret Copland: 3. I don't think a 2 bid is forcing here

Alex Kemeny: 3. I have a 4 loser hand and a powerful source of tricks so I am worth a game forcing rebid.

Tania Black: 3. I have enough to jump!

Roger Yandle: 3. It looks like 3NT is the best spot but I don't want to jump there in case partner reverts to 4. Also, 3 keeps the unlikely possibility of a minor slam in either strain in play.

Cathy Hocking: 3. Looking at 3NT possibility

Ron Landgraff: 3. No problem now! After 2? But pard could bid something else.

Barbara Hunter: 3. show strength & 2nd suit

David Matthews: 3. Straightforward stuff. If partner rebids Spades I will go to 4 as 3NT would seem to be out as partner would be bidding 3 if interested in 3NT and one stopper is not enough.

John R. Mayne: 3. Too strong for 2, even though may be better placed if not passed out. The clever people who try 2 deserve what they get.

Leigh Matheson: 3. Well, do you want to find our game (or slam) here or not?

The other option on the hand is 3, which is the only bid that accurately describes our strength (at the expense of our shape):

Neil Silverman : 3. Close betwwen 3 and 2. 2 a huge winner when partner has five clubs. 2 would be my choice at imps.

Andrea Viscovich: 3. I won't blame who says 3

Adrian Pang: 3. My 17 pts are worth about just that as partner bid spades and the most realistic game is 3NT with spades stopped by partner. 3 would be good old invitational with 6+ diamonds. If he had responded 1 I would jump-shift to 3 to force to game.

Alan Jones: 3. Prepared to bid 3NT if partner rebids spades.

Larry Brose: 3. This lets partner know how strong my hand is. Would like to go on to game. I hope to get a heart lead.

Brian Lawless: 3. Too good for 2 or 2 but not good enough to force to game with 3.

The full deal:

AQJ76 J1053 84 73 10942 AQ64 K92 J4 K853 98 53 Q10982 K72 AQJ1076 AK65

Remember the days when we thought we needed 13 HCP to open the bidding? I wonder how this problem would have been received in the 1950s!

For the purposes of this problem, we are assuming you are using the methods described in the system column in the June issue of Australian Bridge Magazine; combined long- and short-suit game tries. (The December issue contains a better and more sophisticated method from Michael Cartmell, but that's a little complex for this forum.)

We'll start with the short-suit try, which is triggered by an artificial 2NT bid:

Alex Kemeny: 2NT. A 6 loser hand is usually worth a game try opposite a simple raise. No suit qualifies for a long suit trial so let us see if partner has any interest in where my singleton is.

Leigh Matheson: 2NT. I'd bid 4 if 2 promised 8-10. Even without this agreement I'm still very tempted to bid a vul Imp game. Short suit trials tend to be more effective. If you bid 3 partner will usually be scratching his head to work out if his support is useful or not. Here Qx of hearts is amazing, but if our suit were A983, it would be rubbish.

Phil Hocking: 2NT. Assuming my next bid will be 3 after Partner bids 3.

Yes, that would be the most common continuation, although some people prefer to show shortages artificially "up the line" (so 3 would show the short club). Make sure you're on the same wavelength with your partner if you adopt these bids.

Pat O'Connor: 2NT. Then, after 3 by partner, 3 to show a club singleton.

Tim Trahair: 2NT. Game in spades seems pretty remote but if North is maximum with the right cards game could be there.

John R. Mayne: 2NT. I am more than willing to telegraph my hand to the opponents to find out what I need to know on this one; the defense doesn't likely matter a whole lot.

But just in case, check out the alternative method in the December issue of the magazine, which describes how to make a try like this without telling the opponents anything.

Peter Vlas: 2NT. I'm not so much interested in his shortness. I want to stop if his values are in Clubs, otherwise I want to be in 4.

Dan Baker: 2NT. Opposite nothing wasted in clubs, even some horrible minimums have a play. With wasted values there, even some maximums are hopeless.

Cathy Hocking: 2NT. spade fit showing a shortage and 6 looser

Timothy Wright: 2NT. With 6 losers I should make a game try. Bidding 3 could work, but partner will not expect that her small doubleton is helpful there.

Martyn Rew: 2NT. worst case here is playing in 3 which should be more safe than not.

Emil Battista: 2NT. More elegant than the plain vanilla invitational 3. Considered 3 to show a 54 just in case partner holds 4 Hearts and too weak for a 2 response. But, will a 44 play better than a 63 when there is clubs to ruff and trumps to draw

Speaking of the plain vanilla 3, that choice actually got the top expert vote! There is an explanation: two of the 3 bidders on the expert panel intended it as obstructive (which, to be honest, I thought was fairly standard). The majority meant it as a game try asking for trump quality, but the ambiguity pushed this choice into the top spot, in much the same way that Double always gets the top vote when no one agrees on its meaning.

David Graham : 3. 6 loser invitational.

David Matthews: 3. The choice is Pass or Invite. I don't want to give too much away by bidding 3.

Wow, is that the end? Yep, only two comments from the readers on the top expert choice. I'm totally unconvinced about 3, and have promoted 2NT to the top score. A few other readers did mention 3, while discussing the merits (or otherwise) of a preemptive bid:

Ron Lel: Pass. I would bid 3 if this was preemptive, but this is not part of the system. Too many losers to make a trial.

Ian McCance: Pass. game try hopelessly optimistic, even for this forum. 3 might pay for obfuscation but why trade - for +

Nigel Kearney: Pass. Not worth a game try. Even if 3 is not invitational, I would not do it here because I have some defence against four of a minor and the scoring and vul gives us a decent chance of buying it in 2.

Next, the long-suit try:

Neil Silverman : 3. If partner doesn't bid game over 3h you are probably not missing anything and often going down but could win an imp against their 3 of either minor.

Gary hyett: 3. We might make game. More likely is they make game!

No votes for 3, with good reason, but I don't really think 3 is that much better. As Leigh and Timothy mentioned earlier, it's hard to know what's useful opposite a long-suit trial. In the recent GNOT I went for 500 after partner (perfectly reasonably) accepted my long-suit trial with exactly the hand I didn't want. If you use long-suit trials, you really need to be specific about the requirements (again, the December article has a lot to say about this).

Remarkably, that's all we have on game tries, with the majority of readers split evenly between passing 2 and going straight to game!

Julian Foster: 4. 9 card fits are so much more powerful than 8 and here I have shape and controls too. If I bid something else and we end up in 3 I am still going to feel nervous we've missed a vul game.

Brian Lawless: 4. An overbid but OK at IMPs

Michael Smart: 4. I have a 6th trump, 3 losers outside and we are Vul at imps. So would I be content if partner declined whatever invitation I might make? (No.)

Charles Scholl: 4. It's IMPs, and I don't really need much from partner to make game.

Anne Paul: 4. Six losers so will bid game

Hmm, better get a copy of Ron's book on LTC and give that another read...

Barbara Whitmee: 4. "Six-four, bid more", and we are vulnerable at IMPs.

Nigel Guthrie: 4. Game is playable opposite hands with which partner would stretch to raise

Henri de Jong: 4. Yes, pard needs to have the right cards, but we are vul. Short suit trial would be no help.

The common argument for the wild 4 bid is the lack of information given to the opponents:

Wayne Somerville: 4. Giving nothing away, hoping for a beneficial lead.

Brad Johnston: 4. I'm in favour of having them lead blind here, that's often worth a trick in itself.

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Too many hands make game that partner cannot value opposite a trial. This adds the opponents 'blind' lead to my chances. Yes sometimes I'll go off.

Derek Pocock: 4. Must surely be a play for it and any trial bid is giving more infofmation to oppsition than to partner.

Peter Qvist: 4. My opps likes to bid, with my 11 hp pd is proberbly in opper range with silent opps. Maybe against odds - but it doesn't help opps making right lead.

Alan Jones: 4. Since partner is limited, this should be the right spot. It offers the opponents no help in defence.

Roger Yandle: 4. If I try using either trial bid there is no guarantee partner's response will put us in the right spot. Also, whatever information I give out will help the defence. It's vul at IMPs so I'm shooting for game and hoping partner has the right hand or the opps don't defend optimally.

Par Ol-Mars: 4. Alternative is the scientific 2NT. But as 4 often has a play, and the blast reveals nothing and shut out opponents i prefer it.

I have to admit that all adds up to a pretty compelling case for 4, capped off with this answer:

Damo Nair: 4. Jeff Meckstroth once said in an interview that if you have 6, a singleton & partner supports your suit, bid four.

I'd like to see the source for that quote. I'm still not convinced myself; in fact, I'm more sympathetic to this bunch:

Tania Black: Pass. A light opening and a raise that does not promise much

Rainer Herrmann: Pass. Close. I would not object to a short suit trial bid.

Kees Schaafsma: Pass. Even 2 is not safe opposite xxx/xxx/Qx/KJxxx.

Michael Burt: Pass. Even if partner is a maximum, 4 is probably only a 50% chance, so settle for a plus in 2.

Duncan Roe: Pass. I am only slightly over a minimum, and partner's response is minimum also. Expect to lose 1, 1 and either 2 or 1 and 1 (lose more if S are not trumps). So, no game try.

Adrian Pang: Pass. I have a sub-minimum opening and P proba bly has around 6-9. I see not much prospect for game with such weak trumps, although we have a 9 card fit. If we played Bergen and partner bid 3 showing 7-9 and 4 spades, I would consider making a game try with 3.

I'll draw the line at that point; if partner has 7 points and four spades, you are WAY too good for a game try.

A.K. Simon: Pass. I'll take the push to 3 if need be.

Andrea Viscovich: Pass. Maybe 2NT would be fine, in a very good day I'm making 4s with less than 20 HCP. In a bad day I will go down in 3s.

Robert Black: Pass. My hand has not improved much with partner's non forcing raise.

Ron Landgraff: Pass. My partners never have perfect cards and 3 may not make. If the opponents compete, I will raise. Too many hands where partners Club values are wasted.

The problem came from Paul Lavings, who bid 3 at the table (raised to game, failing). The full deal:

Q42 62 AJ765 Q63 98 Q1075 104 KJ982 AK J94 Q932 A1075 J107653 AK83 K8 4

NS can make 3 on the actual deal, although half of the declarers in 4 were allowed to make it.

For the record, I've put this hand through the simulator (after writing my commentary) and the Pass did not come out looking too good. 4 was 30% opposite 6-9 with three spades, and obviously better if partner is accepting a game try (better still on imperfect defence, as seen in the real-life results). Furthermore, on many of the occasions where we get to 3 and it fails, it's flat against three of a minor.

Addressing Adrian's scenario (a 7-9 Bergen raise) 4 is now 63% (and strangely, not much higher if partner is maximum -- which is one reason why invitations are rarely made after a Bergen raise).

From one weak hand with a big fit, to a weaker hand with a bigger fit. 21st century teaching tells us to bid game with ten trumps, but there must be exceptions; is this one of them?

Ian McCance: 4. 10 trumps is enough

Tania Black: 4. The Law of Total Tricks protecteth me.

Anne Paul: 4. bid on total tricks

Brian Lawless: 4. Level of the fit. JS may be useful. IMPs

David Matthews: 4. Too many trumps not to bid game.

An opposing view:

Leigh Matheson: 3. Bidding 4 is shooting for a 5% game - at least one of the minor kings is likely useless opposite shortage. Note The Law doesn't apply here in an uncontested auction. So why 3? Passing has risks too - West will bid a minor and East could easily have a hand to raise.

Exactly. 4 may well be a good save against 4 -- or more importantly, a good preempt against 5 -- but that's purely theoretical. There is no way anyone is bidding 4 (unless we let them get started with 3).

So, as unlikely as a balance into 3 is here, 3 does serve as cheap insurance to make sure that doesn't happen. That's not the reason most people chose it though:

Ron Lel: 3. At least one of the minor suit kings is waste paper. This allows pd to bid game with a max.

H A de Jong: 3. Big fit, but no certainty for 10 tricks. Let pard decide

Peter Vlas: 3. Could well be 4, but I can't bid 3 1/2 H. I'm very tempted for 4 though

Adrian Pang: 3. I have 8 HCP but this hand is instantly upgraded with a whopping 10 card fit in hearts. P is likely 5-4, and if i can find a diamond ruff game is likely if partner is in the upper range, so it is a natural 3 invite.

Phil Hocking: 3. I think there is at least 9 tricks so if partner can decide on final contract.

Rainer Herrmann: 3. If partner does not accept I doubt game will be good.

Timothy Wright: 3. If partner has a minimum 5-4-2-2, even 3 is not cold, but I clearly have to see if 4 is in the cards.

Julian Foster: 3. Obviously great trumps but there's a decent risk of 4 quick losers if partner is minimum (esp with one of my minors getting led through) hence I just invite. Unlike hand 2, if partner passes 3 I am not going to feel so worried we've missed a game.

Alexander Shchennikov: 3. One of our kings most likely against singl, but the game is still possible.

Neil Silverman: 3. Partner sees you are vulnerable so not worried about missing game.

John R. Mayne: 3. Partner will aggressively accept invites here, and this is a serious invite. I expect partner to get this one right almost all the time.

Nigel Guthrie: 3. Advertisement for Gazzilli?

I'm sure there would be fewer bidding forum problems if everyone played Gazzilli. To clarify, with Gazzilli, we don't need to worry about opener having 16 HCP, OR an attractive 5-5 hand such as AK109x-AQ10xx-x-xx, making it a little easier to go slow on this hand.

Martyn Rew: 3. Partner will need extra values or luck to turn this in to a successful game contract.

Robert Black: 3. There are still many gaps to be filled if 10 tricks are to be made

Charles Scholl: 3. With a good hand or almost any excuse, partner will take the bait and bid 4. But why force the issue opposite a minimum?

Artur Wasiak: 3. 6-card support is great but it seems that one of my minor-suit kings may be useless.

Kees Schaafsma: 3. My Kings don't match well, I don't want to punish pard for opening on AKxxx/Axxx/xx/Jx.

Dan Baker: 3. Not playing 2/1 is an advantage for once, as 4 here is a great picture bid (I can't have too much more than this or I would have bid 2). But that should be a hand that's vastly improved by his bidding, and kings in partner's short suits are not improved. Kx Jxxxxx xxx Ax would be an easy 4 here, but if partner can't move over 3 we probably shouldn't be in game.

The expert panel voted 50/50 between 3 and 4, with the readers being just a little more aggressive. Let's hear from the game bidders:

Damo Nair: 4. 2 kings outside ... but I'm still bidding it.

Nigel Kearney: 4. 3 could be quite a lot less and does not do the hand justice.

Brad Johnston: 4. I don't envision my minors are worth anything much at all, but I have 6 trumps. Maybe something good will happen.

Par Ol-Mars: 4. Aceless so no 4 cue. :)

Luckily Par included the smiley face there, just in case we didn't know he was kidding. There were actually a few people who at least mentioned slam, and in the absence of a smiley I'm forced to assume they seriously believed it to be at least an option (albeit an easily-rejected one).

Michael Smart: 4. No courtesy cue this time. Partner didn't bid 3 over 1NT, and at least one of my kings figures to be worthless.

Emil Battista: 4. Surely anything else is either wimpish or fanciful

Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. They will probably lead a minor, which will hopefully give partner the info he needs to plan the play. This hand is nowhere near good enough to investigate slam and too strong to just invite

Michael Burt: 4. I regard going past 1NT as somewhat encouraging and game at IMPs is worth a go with the heart fit.

I don't think that's a common agreement at all. When I was just starting out I used to occasionally pass 1NT with four hearts, so I think I'm well qualified to tell you it's a losing strategy (sometimes embarrassingly so). 2 does/should not promise extra values.

Duncan Roe: 4. Tough choice between 3 (passed out, making 4) and 4 (making 3). Hope 4 can in fact make.

Wayne Somerville: 4. Two way shot. Might make, opponents might have a minor suit contract on.

Alex Kemeny: 4. Notwithstanding 9 losers my hand just improved a lot. Have to try for the vulnerable game at this firm of scoring.

Tim Trahair: 4. Our poor hand has been transformed by N's second bid.

A.K. Simon: 4. What else? Hard to think of a 2nd choice

Ian Patterson: 4. With the known fit the hand now has 6/7 losers (deducting 2 losers for the extra trumps).

Since I had the simulator already fired up, I gave this one a run too. Assuming partner has minimum lengths and 14 HCP (enough to accept the invitation) 4 came out at 49%. So it's not looking good for this small group, who had no expert support:

Cathy Hocking: Pass. not enough points for game between us better get part score and not go too high

Derek Pocock: Pass. unlikely to be much more in this as we're looking trump bound.

The full deal, also from George Cuppaidge:

A10954 AKQ2 542 Q 876 109 AJ8 A10743 KQ3 7 Q763 J9652 J2 J86543 K109 K8

The original deal included the 109, which didn't appear in the original problem). On either layout, NS can make 3 and EW make 3. West wasn't planning to balance over 2 (from his point of view, we may be in a misfit).

So, having established in Q2 that 11 HCP is enough to open and force to game opposite a single raise, opening with an 8-count should be fairly routine:

David Graham : 1. 11 total points & a void too good for a weak 2

David Matthews, Phil Hocking, Anne Paul, Jack Lai, Alex Kemeny, Barbara Hunter, Charles Scholl, Cathy Hocking: 1. Too strong for a Weak Two.

Julian Foster: 1. Can't believe a weak two is an option! That deserves to play in 2 with 6 cold! I prefer pass to 2. But I think 1 gets us into the auction first and we may be able to show Cs later as well - hopefully without partner taking us too far overboard! I don't like passing and coming in later with Michaels when I have 6 spades (that's more appealing with 5026 shape).

Leigh Matheson: 1. Not much of a stretch. Adding the 10 would make this hand a routine 1 opener.

Nigel Kearney: 1. 2 is ridiculous. 3 is still an underbid and makes it hard for partner to judge as he won't expect this hand type. We can't accurately describe by passing and bidding later and I hate passing shapely hands anyway. 1 seems best. At least I have some defence.

Brad Johnston: 1. 2 is wrong, but on the fence about passing to catch up later and opening 1. This loses when pard has an average flat 13 count and drives, but makes it harder for the opps to find if they should be in 4 or just 2.

Emil Battista: 1. Just enough HCP to meet ABF one level opening requirements. I am a fan of Paul Marston, so could easily pretend this is a most suitable hand for 4.

That's a good point Emil. While a world-class expert panel has declared that this is a routine 1 opening, the ABF tells us that if not for the J, 1 would be a HUM (Highly Unusual Method, banned in nearly all events). Maybe it's time for administrators to back the hell off and stop trying to tell bridge players how to bid.

And while I'm on that topic, it shouldn't be mandatory for standard bidders to write their minimum opening points on the system card. The other day I lost half a board (at BAM scoring) because I played an advertised "6-9" weak two opener to have 6-9 points. She had a perfectly normal five-point weak two, but why write 6-9 on the card? It doesn't help anyone, and it's misleading. Rant ended.

Rainer Herrmann: 1. Bidding has more to gain than to lose.

Neil Silverman : 1. At MPs see no reason not to open 1. This hand seems a lot better than the flat 11 counts people open these days.

Alan Jones: 1. I don't want to lose the clubs.

Damo Nair: 1. It's MPs. I am never going to pre-empt with a control-rich hand.

John Newman: 1. Most of my partners like aggressive preempts, but this doesn't really fit 3 or 4, and passing isn't fun, therefore 1 feels least worst.

Derek Pocock: 1. Must get in first rather than wait to expect to be reduced to a negatuive double on next round. Am prepared to show my other suit at this vulnerability

Gary Hyett: 1. Not ideal but playing strength OK. 6/5 come alive!

Moving on to 2, some of the comments were fairly self-defeating:

Andrea Viscovich: 2. 2 is too obvious, so the right answer should be another one

Peter Vlas: 2. 1, 2 or 4? For 1 my defensive values are too little, for 4 my pips are too small so I choose 2

Tim Trahair: 2. A hand where 1 might be a better bid, However if North has values and S support we may find game.

Brian Lawless: 2. Could Pass but it may be at 4 when it comes back to me.

Ian McCance: 2. Given the conditions, I think it best to get in quick with boss suit before opps get away

Wayne Somerville: 2. I normally hate weak 2s with a side 5 card suit, but the spades are not good enough to bid 3

John R. Mayne: 2. OK, this is a stupid bid and I hope it scores badly. My real bid would be 3, and if they pass it out for down 1 with 7 frozen cold, I'll do it again next time. This is just a cheesy attempt to match the field.

We offered 3 as an option, but there were virtually no takers. Except:

Patrick Huang: 3. Must bid something with this 6-5 pattern. Choice is between 1 and 3. I choose 3 to put more pressure on opponents.

3 looks like a silly choice, but how bad can it really be? Nil vil, at Matchpoints, it will be a good bid when the hand belongs to the opponents, and only really costs when we aren't supposed to be in spades. Even when partner has clubs and a void spade, 3 will work well if no one has a takeout double and they can make 4 -- they may even end up in 3NT with no club stopper.

2 has almost the same downside as 3, possibly with less of the upside, but it was by far the more popular choice as John anticipated. In fact, it was the top reader vote:

Dan Baker: 2. I worry that this will miss a good club contract, but in first seat it's more likely that I'm blocking a red-suit fit for the opponents.

Michael Smart: 2. Lack of suit quality compensated for by shape.

Duncan Roe: 2. Only have 19 rule-of-20 points. This warns me off opening 1. With 2, partner knows he's on his own if he raises.

Martyn Rew: 2. this is a many loser hand, but you certainly don't want to be defending. 1 here would be very misleading for partner. 3 has a very big potential downside. 2x is unlikely to be left in.

Michael Burt: 2. This won't mislead partner.

Barbara Whitmee: 2. Was considering 1 because I don't have too many losers, then thought about opening 3 to hog the bidding space so they may not find their heart game, then subsided in 2 so partner will maintain confidence that what I bid I have!

Adrian Pang: 2. Too weak for 1. 3 would pre-empt ourselves as we could have a slam opposite as few as QJx xxxx AKx Kxx. Not enough spades for 4. Although very distributive, 2 is the best description and if partner has any sign of life (except a preemptive 3 raise) I would probably be raising to game.

I wonder if it's actually right to pass a preemptive raise with this hand? Obviously we've all been taught that you should never bid again after a preempt, but in real life you often see experts do it on the unusual hands. Case in point:

Larry Cohen: 2. Bidding clubs next. I always tell my students, once you preempt, you shouldn't bid again. Maybe I should stop telling them that.

Nigel Guthrie: 2. Rebid clubs if possible.

Finally, we have the Pass, which ironically was chosen by the people who thought the hand was too strong for 2:

Roger Yandle: Pass. call me old fashioned, but I'm too strong for 2 and too weak for 1. Hopefully I can back in later if it's appropriate.

Dean Eidler: Pass. I have the boss suit so can come in later. Not quite good enough for 1.

Ron Landgraff: Pass. Rebids are awkward to impossible. It will not be passed out and I will know more later.

Timothy Wright: Pass. While 2 is preemptive and I am in first seat, the call has three flaws (bad suit, outside void, strong 5-card side suit). I am not quite strong enough for 1.

Ian Patterson: Pass. Too strong (6 losers, if a fit is found in either Clubs or Spades) to open a weak 2, but not strong enough in HCP to open 1. Partner may yet open 1NT.

The logic that a hand is "too good for 2" but "not good enough for 1" is frowned upon in expert circles -- there is not meant to be a gap in between 1 and 2 (assuming sufficient suit quality for 2). However, two-suiters have a valid excuse for breaking that rule:

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. I have agreements to describe this hand more accurately as an overcall.

Robert Black: Pass. There should be a chance later to describe this potentially powerful hand.

Ron Lel: Pass. Hope to come in later.

Par Ol-Mars: Pass. With highest suit I'll be able to enter the action later.

Alexander Shchennikov: Pass. This hand is not for preemptive bid. For 1 spades are very weak. So pass and hope to take part in next bidding.

The full deal:

AJ98 A1032 1097 J4 Q5 QJ98765 Q K103 4 K4 AKJ8652 Q97 K107632 43 A8652

After Christmas I'll see if I can dig up the travellers and report what happened at the table.

Our final deal requires a lot of speculation about what will happen if we reopen, with the heart suit seemingly missing from the deck. I'll kill the suspense by giving you the layout up front: partner has a singleton spade, but we can still make 4 (and 3NT); partner has AKQ3, but we can't make 5; partner does have a diamond stack, but opponents have an easy escape to 2.

The voting produced an outright majority for Pass, with the readers and with the experts.

Par Ol-Mars: Pass. Difficult to know the outcome if we help them to find the heart suit. But hopefully Pass is likely to gain a smal plus or reduce losses.

Alan Jones: Pass. This bidding only makes sense if partner has diamonds and East has spades. This implies that the best result our way is a part score in clubs. It would be nice to double and have partner pass, but this risks EW finding a heart fit. Therefore, pass and hope for three light.

Nigel Kearney: Pass. Timid maybe, but acting here just seems like it's aiming at a narrow target with too much potential for bad things to happen if wrong.

Damo Nair: Pass. If North can't make any noise why should I? If we have club fit may be they can make some number of hearts or diamonds.

Many people echoed the comment that there was no need to act because it's not our hand. You'll be disappointed when you see the actual deal, but don't let that put you off. Partner has bid poorly; it happens sometimes.

Phil Hocking: Pass. Don't want to bid at the 3 level with this hand and 2 isn't necessarily going anywhere given our side doesn't appear to have the balance of power.

Leigh Matheson: Pass. Likely that they have a nice heart fit and/or the hand belongs to them anyway. The only risk here is that partner has a good hand (with diamonds). Still, +150 is fine if our game is not laydown.

Alexander Shchennikov: Pass. We have no game, fighting for 110 when we easy can go for -500 is not nesessary on imps play.

Derek Pocock: Pass. No place for negative double and at this vulnerability can easily find us minus 200

John R. Mayne: Pass. Nuh-uh. Partner doesn't have four hearts and a decent hand, doesn't have any kind of spade support, and I'm content to take the 50's. When partner has x AQJx KJTxx Jxx and was looking for blood, well, sorry pard.

Michael Burt: Pass. Partner couldn't double or bid and we are vulnerable. We could easily get in to trouble at IMPs if I bid .

Dan Baker: Pass. Partner didn't double and didn't raise, so either he's broke (and we go for at least 500 if I say anything) or the opponents missed a 9+ card heart fit and partner is loaded in the minors. Either way, there's a lot more downside than up if I act again.

Cathy Hocking: Pass. partner obviously doesn't have points, not strong enough to bid again being vulnerable and imps

Brad Johnston: Pass. They've missed their heart fit, partner may have a stack but if it goes X p p 2 I'm in a worse position. 2 could be all sorts of wrong, pard couldn't raise and I could get tapped. I don't have the strength for bidding 3, so here it looks right to get out low.

The heart deficiency was a common argument, whether it be fear of partner bidding hearts in response to a reopening double, or fear of opponents finding a heart fit (possibly in game) over any reopening:

Gary Hyett, Rainer Herrmann: Pass. If pard has hearts he's weak. If he doesn't we're in trouble.

Artur Wasiak: Pass. Worried about hearts.

Wayne Somerville: Pass. It looks as if the opponents are in the wrong contract, I'm not going to help them out.

David Matthews: Pass. Someone has some cards and points and it looks like the opposition who may well be missing game in Hearts.

Anne Paul: Pass. Can't double as do not have four hearts, would normally reopen with x if playing compulsory reopening x. In Acol I could also rebid my spades can't bid 3 not strong enough

Ron Landgraff: Pass. Double gets me nothing but hearts by partner or a nice 3 which may get them to Hearts. 3 directly could be dicey or worse.

Ella Pattison: Pass. If I balance they'll bid 4, it's just how it goes for me.

I sympathise Ella, I'm having a bad run too. This year I've balanced opps out of 1 into a making game four times -- one of them cost me and Erin a spot in the ACT Open Team. I'm beginning to hate balancing decisions (which means you'll be seeing many more of them in this column).

Timothy Wright: Pass. Maybe partner has a diamond stack, but I cannot double, lest she bid hearts.

Ian Patterson: Pass. Opponents probably have a Heart fit which they may find if I re-open. If partner has a trap pass, he might have considered finding the vulnerable 3NT game. The only way to show the 2 black suits with this weak a hand is to open 1.

Ron Lel: Pass. Partner cannot make a sputnik double? The opponents have a big heart fit. I am passing.

A.K. Simon: Pass. Partner couldn't even croak 2 or make a negative double. Let them play 2, they may be cold for 4 and get there if you reopen.

Neil Silverman: Pass. Partner not likely to have penalty pass at these colors. He couldn't make a negative double so they might belong in hearts.

Brian Lawless: Pass. If partner has a penalty double of 2, opponents have a big H fit

Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. No spade-raise, no double, so he could be waiting for re-opening, he could also be looking at a poor hand. From my hand the opps belong in hearts, they are in diamonds; we might go plus. I suspect 3 will win this vote.

Looking to the bidders, the top reader group was 2, although hardly any of them left a comment:

Peter Vlas: 2. Dbl and hoping that partner will either bid 3 or pass on my 2 over his 2 is too optimistic in my mind

Ian McCance: 2. everyone curiously silent except me (and West) Can't cost more than 800

Michael Smart: 2. Perhaps shows a 6th, but I don't have the extras for 3. If partner can bid 3 now, then I can bid 4. (dream on...)

Nigel Guthrie: 2. Typical modern partners believe that their pass is forcing.

Barbara Whitmee: 2. Very good suit, but also like 3 to describe the hand pattern.

This is the winning action on the actual deal, but that doesn't really mean anything as partner's actions were fairly unusual. For the experts, the small number of non-passers were skewed strongly in a different direction:

Alex Kemeny: Dbl. Have to allow partner to pass for penalty. Will remove 2 to 2. Where are all the points?!

Duncan Roe: Dbl. Hoping partner passed because his suit is D. Will convert H response to S: we have 5 sure tricks that way.

Charles Scholl: Dbl. I don't see a downside to doubling: I'm OK with correcting 2 to 2, passing partner's 2 or 3, or seeing partner pass.

H A de Jong: Dbl. Missing lots of and points and don't intend to pass 2. Pard may well be very red.

Julian Foster: Dbl. My philosophy here tends to be to ask "would I have passed a penalty X of 2 if partner had made one?" If the answer is yes (which it is here) then I re-open with X. Will pull a H bid from partner to S.

Adrian Pang: Dbl. North might be either weak or having a trap pass with strength in diamonds. As I am quite short in diamonds a dbl will be most flexible. If pard pulls to 2 I will bid 3 to show a two suiter not strong enough to bid 3 directly (that would be 16+).

Emil Battista: Dbl. Up until recently I would have bid 3. Today I will double. If Roger Yandle does not double then I will need a please explain :)

Emil and Roger have a long-standing side bet on who will do better in this competition each year. Emil is in for two disappointments this year: Roger has (1) beaten him, and everyone else in Australia, and (2) apparently forgotten his partnership discussion:

Roger Yandle: Pass. where are all the hearts? If partner has them she isn't strong enough to neg double. It looks like the opps might have a much better place than this so I'm going quietly.

The final option, 3, turned out to be a non-contender, with no expert votes and only a handful of readers:

Tim Trahair: 3. If North has reasonable values he may be able to chance 3NT. If he repeats Ds we can try 4th suit forcing or repeat our excellent Ss.

stephen bartos: 3. While pass is appealing, the 5-5 shape is worth another bid. HCP appear fairly evenly distributed among all four hands, so shape is important.

Martyn Rew: 3. Certainly don't want to be defending 2 with this hand.

The full deal, making 4 in the 5-1 fit but not 5 in the 5-4 fit:

9 A109 J10743 AKQ3 863 KQ63 AK985 2 7542 J8752 6 J65 AKQJ10 4 Q2 109874

I think partner can take most of the blame for this bad result, as it's a pretty poor penalty pass (at this vulnerability, very poor). His diamond holding pretty much guarantees 3NT, with a double-stopper and 13 HCP outside, and finding a good 6 after this start is virtually impossible. Maybe we should have presented this problem from his point of view instead, perhaps with favourable vulnerability.

That's the end for another year; thanks very much to all the readers who took part, and all the world-class experts who provided their answers for the magazine. Our Readers' Race results are listed below; congratulations to our winners Artur Wasiak of Poland, Fredrik Jarlvik of Sweden, and our own Roger Yandle from Newcastle.

Our next issue will be out in mid-February. The February questions are already online, here.