This is the bidding forum from the August 2008 issue of Australian Bridge magazine, with answers from many of the world's top players. This month's guest moderator is Larry Cohen of Florida. In addition to his years as moderator of a similar feature in Bridge World magazine, Larry established his bidding forum credentials by being the only panelist to score 500 in our June forum -- so this month's panel have a lot to live up to.

Is it really a nice thing to play such a joke on a guest moderator? Surely, the top vote can't be for a penalty double with a singleton trump. If I didn't see the seven names and comments, I wouldn't believe it. Then again, the readers' vote also seems to indicate a liking for that amazing call.

It always ruffles feathers when the top vote doesn't get the top mark. Here, fortunately the rules allow me to award 100 to 3, which also received 7 votes. Double has been demoted -- if you want a rationale, note that 13 out of 20 panelists thought double was wrong. If you voted for double (you must enjoy scoring -670), and wish to complain, you can send a letter to my Antarctica office.

So, what spell did that singleton three of hearts cast on seven panelists who couldn't wait to make a blood-curdling penalty double (well, maybe they didn't snap it out onto the table):

Ron Smith: Dbl. Perfect hand. Partner can hopefully judge.

Perfect if double were takeout, but it isn't. With which half of that 3 does Ron expect to take any trump tricks?

Andrew Robson: Dbl. I think partner will work out how many hearts I have. My double therefore indicates a high-card-heavy hand for my earlier bidding. I will be happy if partner passes it out too (leading my trump of course).

Why should partner work out that we have committed a penalty double with a singleton? What number of hearts will he hold (two, three) that causes him to pull? If he had four, he'd have doubled.

Patrick Huang: Dbl. Partner's pass over 2 indicates he has a balanced hand with no more than three clubs and three spades. My OBAR double here is of course competitive but partner may convert if he has a 3-4-4-2 defensive hand.

Using Bergen-Cohen terms (Opponents Bid And Raise) would normally curry favor with the Moderator, but not here. Repeat after me: "After partner redoubles, all doubles by either player are pure penalty." The fact that the opponents have raised doesn't change the meaning unless you have a specific agreement to the contrary. Let me repeat, "pure penalty." Not cards, not flexible, not competitive, not takeout, not optional. This double will not be pulled unless partner has a void.

Bob Jones: Dbl. My opponents usually don't bid like this with only 15 HCP (max) between them. I don't want to let them off the hook. I'm hoping partner can pass. Maybe if it's some great player sitting West, like Dave Berkowitz, I would show some respect by cuebidding here. Against anyone else, double should work okay.

Mentioning my regular partner also will not get any special treatment. Bob's hope that his partner will pass is hereby granted. When partner passed 2 around to you, he was surely intending to sit if you made a penalty double.

Paul Yovich: Dbl. Since I bid 1 in front of partner, this should surely be takeout. I have enough for another effort and have no idea what strain we should play in.

I don't see it. Change the red suits so that you are 3-1 the other way, and this would be an easy penalty double. Because you happened to be dealt 1-3 the wrong way, you want partner to become a mind reader and treat your double as takeout?

Jill Courtney: Dbl. This should be incorrect. The auction has a curious feel to it, hence, I suppose the problem.

This should be incorrect? Correct.

Peter Fordham: Dbl. What shape does partner rate to hold? Less than four spades, three or four hearts (if four then modest quality), three to five diamonds, and two or three clubs. Strength is 10 to a poor 12. Game is by no means certain. Double by me (the player who partner will know can't have heart length) ought to show some extra strength (which I have) and leave partner to continue as is appropriate to their hand.

"Partner will know we can't have heart length?" This reminds me of the auction

2	pass	3	pass
pass	dbl

Many pairs choose to use this as an either/or meaning. It is either penalty (KJ109 and two aces), or light takeout (maybe a 4-1-4-4 9-count). Partner is supposed to figure it out from his hand. That's a dangerous treatment, but it is playable. But not on this problem. We can't expect partner to look at his one, two or three hearts and to divine that our double is somehow takeout, based on heart shortness. Partner's redouble sets up penalty doubles. End of discussion.

Ted Chadwick: 2NT. Partner's redouble shows a misfit for clubs and the desire to penalize the enemy wherever they might go. However he seems to have forgotten to double 2, and I certainly can't, but pass is not an option because this auction is forcing to 2NT. So that's what I bid; he'll be able to tell that I don't have hearts by looking at his hand.

I can't see 2NT with a stopper of singleton three any more than a penalty double with that same holding. Again, what is the obsession with assuming partner will know we have one heart when we make a bid that sounds like we have real hearts/stoppers?

David Berkowitz: 3. Impossible problem, due to the nebulous redouble. I have to assume partner is something like 3-3-4-3, since he didn't bid 1, so I will show my extra club.

Welcome, David -- who graciously risked my scorn by making a guest appearance to coincide with my moderating. I'll let him slide easy on this first one, since his is the first answer that isn't ridiculous. On the other hand, I don't see why he should blame the redouble -- what else does partner do with a 10+ count that wants to penalize the opponents?

Dave Beauchamp: 3. Partner has established a forcing auction. Seems odd that partner can't support spades, double hearts or bid diamonds.

Yes, it does feel as if partner is 3-3-3-3. The problem with 3 is that it doesn't show our extras. We would make the same call if a king lighter.

Stephen Burgess: 3. Both our doubles are penalties so I can't double. I am better than minimum and 3 about describes this hand.

Steve and Barbara Shepard: 3. Completes the description of our hand and allows partner to intelligently choose a contract.

Those are the two most sensible answers I've read since I signed up for this job.

Justin Hackett: 3. 3 would sound like 4-0-4-5 and since pard didn't double I won't double to suggest defending. I'll set up a game force and see what happens.

Michael Ware: 3. It is hard to understand partner's bidding. Redouble showed 9-11, penalty interest, and less than four clubs. He now seems to have no penalty interest without four hearts or four spades. Still we have enough to insist on game; hopefully partner can do something sensible now.

Frank Stewart: 3. North seems to hold a balanced hand without a heart stopper. 6 looks pretty good if he has Axx-xxx-KQxx-Qxx, so I can't hang below game. (Surely, nobody would treat a double here as "action.")

Surely, you would think. That's what I thought until I saw our gang of seven.

Mike Lawrence: 3. Not sure what North has but he does have ten points. I bid 3 as a general purpose force. What I have feels about right since my obvious bid of 3 is not forcing. If double is takeout, that would be best. Have takeout doubles reached this sequence yet?

No, Mike, they haven't.

Kate McCallum: 3. Can't pass, can't double, and don't have any more suits to bid. What's left?

In America, we always joke that a cue bid is sure to score well in a bidding contest. I've brought that U.S. scoring to Australia by awarding 3 the top score. I can't say that I love 3 more than 3, but I sure love it more than double.

Eddie Kantar: 4. I thought bidding over a redouble showed a weak distributional opening bid? In any case I'm jumping to 4 to try to make up for past sins.

Eddie, even if you jumped to 5, I'd think it a better call than double. Sorry that I can't give you more points than the doublers. As it is, I'm afraid that my write up of this problem may keep me from ever getting invited back.

I'm pleased to see that 2NT is not natural (heaven forbid), but I prefer to play it can be any two suits (not necessarily the minors). That treatment allows me to balance (or in this case, pre-balance), with say, xx-KJxxx-x-AJ9xx. I'd hate to guess which suit to bid, and a double is no good either, since partner will chose diamonds, with say, 3-2-5-3 shape, blowing past our fit. I'd want to bid 2NT to tell partner to choose the cheapest suit he can tolerate, hoping to reach an 8- or 9-card fit in clubs or hearts.

Anyway, with a hand this strong, we can make do without 2NT. We have so much playing strength that we can risk the four-level to show our two-suiter:

Sartaj Hans: 4. Bidding our suits is usually a good start to any auction.

Eddie Kantar: 4. Finally I would get a chance to use 2NT as I think it should be used -- hearts and a minor, a hand not strong enough to jump to 4. But then the *&^% footnote tells me it shows the minors. I will not be a happy camper if partner has long clubs.

I would not be happy if I were dealt 5-5 in the minors and Eddie's system prevented me from bidding 2NT. Since my primary goal in life is to bump the opponents from 2 to 3, why not employ 2NT to maximum use for any two-suiter?

Stephen Burgess: 4. I love the concept of showing ten of my cards whenever possible so 4 is perfect.

I think it would be more perfect if our fragment didn't contain three cards. Surely, clubs is a possible strain, and one might say that we can show even more than 10 of our cards by doubling.

Mike Lawrence: 4. Shows my hand which may be necessary if West bids to 3 or higher. I can stand a penalty double, in fact I invite one. Only if we have a club spot will this work terribly.

Ted Chadwick: 4. So, 4 is Leaping Michaels is it? Why then is this a bidding forum problem? I have diamonds and hearts don't I, so I bid 4, duh.

We won't consider that as a prediction of a unanimous panel, but it does feel like an embarrassing prediction for an action that received only 30% of the vote.

The objections to 4 were two-fold. First, was the unwillingness to commit to the four-level:

Michael Ware: 3. Not good enough for leaping Michaels.

But foremost, was the panel's decision to treat this as a three- not a two-suiter.

Andrew Robson (and Dave Beauchamp, similarly): Dbl. 4 is too much with such bare suits. Plus we may belong in clubs.

David Berkowitz (with Patrick Huang and Ron Smith, similarly): Dbl. Best chance of keeping all strains in play, and if my partner passes I will not be unhappy with all my aces.

Here are both of the objections to 4 in one answer:

Henri de Jong: Dbl. Bidding 4 gets us uncomfortably high vulnerable. Also we are playable in three suits, so the double appeals.

Steve and Barbara Shepard: Dbl. Double is the best overall description of our hand and has the best chance of leading to our best contract. Its major drawback is that we will often lose 5-3 heart contracts -- no small cost.

Paul Yovich (and Frank Stewart, much the same): Dbl. I think bidding 4 with these slightly threadbare spots is too much, and clubs might end up being our best fit. On the other hand, even with a spade void, I don't mind if partner sits this -- I have three aces and pard may have five trumps.

Peter Fordham: Dbl. I'm not fond of this effort. Nonetheless, how many red cards does partner rate to have? Not too many. So I am not too sanguine about our chances at a high level. On a golden day, partner will Pass and lead the trump king. (As they used to say in rubber bridge circles in Sydney, "when Dr. Don (Neill) doubles and leads the king of trumps, best be his partner."

In America, we used to say that about Norman Kay. Since he must be in heaven, that leads into this comment:

Jill Courtney: Dbl. Thanks for the bidding tips but this hand does not qualify for any of the bids on offer. 4 at this vulnerability in this position makes the prospect of 76 virgins look decidedly unattractive. Terrestrial delights still come to me occasionally.

Kate McCallum: Dbl. Whenever I double with this hand it ends the auction, and it's always wrong. With my usual stubbornness I'll give it one more try… perhaps with Aces and spaces I want to defend for a change. And the vulnerability is right. I still don't like it, but everything else is worse.

Kate (who edited my book on the Law of Total Tricks) knows that one of my favorite expressions is "avoid doubles with voids." This is generally a good idea but here, with three aces, and partner behind the spades, I won't be mortified if he converts for penalties. Furthermore, I am known to "balance light in direct seat," so I have much more defense than usual.

Bob Jones: Dbl. The gadget bids don't seem right. I don't have enough tricks for 3 and I don't think this hand is strong enough for 4 (but not far off). 3 focuses attention in a good place, our most likely game, but double is so much safer. Vul at IMPs is a good time to be concerned with safety. I hope Larry has something smart to say about the first two problems. They are both very good.

I don't know if I wrote anything smart, but I think the panel did a good job.
 

This is an annoying problem since every bid is a complete lie. We have too much to pass, yet no five-card suit, no three-card support, and no club stopper. At times like these I wish it were legal to say double in response to partner to show this hand type. Of all the "lies," I find this one least appealing:

Stephen Burgess: Pass. Heavy pass but I also like aggressive second hand action so won't hang partner for doing so.

I prefer the aggressive action to come in balancing seat while the direct overcall shows a decent hand. (Note the difference with problem #2, where the opponents bid and raised; in that case I am in favor of aggressive direct seat action.)

Peter Fordham: Pass. Insufficient fit to get enthusiastic despite the tops in the majors. I can't realistically expect partner to produce running diamonds and a club stop for 3NT. 3 might get us to a good 4 and it might get us to a b^$*&^ awful 4 doubled. Will try for 110.

Stephen and Peter could be right, of course, but I always remember words that Jeff Meckstroth once sarcastically told me: "Larry, they pay a bonus for vulnerable games." (This was the result of me complaining that Jeff bids a game on every deal).

On the other end of the spectrum was the very optimistic choice of the stopperless 3NT:

Ted Chadwick: 3NT. No raise of the clubs from East so it's 3NT from me. Partner has got our stopper in clubs, I hope!

Sartaj Hans: 3NT. Those non-vul preemptors never run their suits. Or so I dream…

Patrick Huang: 3NT. Trust partner will be inclined to double if he has a singleton club. If he has two or more, 3NT is probably right.

They all have a point. Also, even if clubs can run, they might not run. If we bid a confident 3NT, West might eschew a lead from say, ace-queen-jack -- trying instead to reach partner. Even if he does lead a club, the suit might block. Still, the most common choices were the four-card heart suit and the two-card cue raise:

Bob Jones: 3. I can't bring myself to pass with AK-A. Once I decide to bid, what else but 3? If partner raises with three that is likely to be our best game. I'm hoping to hear 3 or 3NT.

David Berkowitz: 3. I have all the admiration in the world for 3NT, and indeed it is easier to bid it on paper as opposed to at the table. Nevertheless, I will try to find the right game (hopefully we have one).

Paul Yovich: 3. Our future is not likely to be in diamonds, and this is the best way to probe for another spot. But why do I feel like I just went past our last plus score?

Dave Beauchamp: 3. Owe pard a heart. Way too much game potential to say no bid.

Michael Ware: 3. Too wimpy to bid a direct 3NT, but hopefully partner can. Too much to pass. If 3 gets raised to 4, it might be best game.

Henri de Jong: 3. Very tough, but we have a good hand. Sadly 4 to find his major gets us past 3NT, so 3 is the least of all evils.

So, let's see about that 4 bid:

Mike Lawrence: 4. A wonderful problem. 4 gives us a small chance of finding a major suit game. If partner rebids diamonds, we have another headache. I am inclined to respect North's vulnerable overcall enough to bid game.

Andrew Robson: 4. First message of a cuebid in preempt auctions is Choice of Game a la Zia.

Of course, partner might like to choose 3NT. Since 4 eliminates that possibility, I'm pleased to see there were more votes for 3 which garnered the top score of 100.

Frank Stewart: 4. Hoping to hear North bid four of a major. If he bids 4, I'll bid 5, which will have a good chance opposite Kx-xxx-AKJxxxx-x.

Eddie Kantar: 4. In a perfect world 3 would ask for a club stopper, but I'm afraid it doesn't. Maybe partner has a four-card major. Whatever, I have to make some sort of a push to game.

Steve and Barbara Shepard: 4. We like our hand and are willing to play game somewhere -- just hope our best game isn't 3NT.

Kate McCallum: 4. Cuebids above the 2-level don't always promise a fit. I have the values to force to game, but there's no need to be a hero with 3. If we have a 4-4 major-suit fit, we'll get there. (This is not the time for a 4-3.)

I met Jill Courtney during my trip down under in 1994. She made a good impression on me -- I remember her being friendly and laughing. That is why it pains me for the second time this month to have to publish her action and then kill her in print:

Jill Courtney: 5. If 3NT is right I simply have to bid it and, yes I would, but not on bidding forum. No point trying to "show" a stopper in a major since you could easily pick the wrong one. So with three sharp controls and the right vulnerability I'll try five.

How can this ever be right? I understand bypassing 3NT, but why not at least keep four of either major in play? Surely partner hasn't denied holding a side suit in hearts or spades. So three of a major, or 4, keeping 4 and 4 alive, has to be better than skipping directly to 5.

The full deal:

KQ82  Q7  AJ9765  3  9  10843  10  AKJ8764  J754 J95   KQ42  Q9 A1063 AK62  83 1052

At the table South bid 3 and North ended up declaring 4 redoubled for +1480.

Kate McCallum: 3NT. Doesn't feel like the right hand to defend 2 doubled. The downside of Lebensohl: we have to overbid sometimes. I'm sure I've never objected to that!

I don't object to Kate's overbidding, but there is no need for it here. Most of the panel feels this is the upside of Lebensohl. We can bid 3 to show that we have real values.

Stephen Burgess: 3. I hate Lebensohl and refuse to play it but it's certainly good for this hand.

Paul Yovich: 3. That will do -- no harm in having a bit to spare for one's bid. This is surely one of the reasons Lebensohl was invented.

Andrew Robson: 3. A bit wet, really. But why should we be defeating 2? And why, facing a protective double, should we have the values for game. So wet, yes; sensible, yes.

I suppose that 'wet' is a British expression, maybe Australian, too. I sense that it has negative connotations, but Andrew's reasoning makes 3 sound like the right call.

Patrick Huang: 3. Glad we are playing Lebensohl so my 3 will show about 7-10 points.

Dave Beauchamp: 3. Good description of my hand. Pass is too unilateral.

Ron Smith: 3. I'd rather declare than guess what the defense should be.

Mike Lawrence: 3. The chances of us having a game (or slam) make up for the chances of killing 2. Would like to know East's tendencies. I am averse to hanging partner for balancing on a light hand which is part of the reason for my bidding here.

Yes, who is this East character? What if he is a crazy man?

Bob Jones: 3. If one of Larry's ex-partners, Marty Bergen, were East, I would pass and hope he had a four-card heart suit. Against anyone else, I'm looking after my offensive prospects, which are reasonable. 3 is about right on values.

Marty once famously did open 2 on a four-card suit, and it worked out quite well. He used to tell me that the shorter/ worse his suit, the safer he was. The opponents always had length/strength in his suit, so they couldn't make takeout doubles. Without the takeout double there couldn't be a conversion to a penalty double. I hate to say that this almost makes sense.

Maybe this problem had too many hints in the footnotes:

Ted Chadwick: 3. Yet again you've given me the answer! 3 shows some values so that's what I bid because that's what I've got.

I like Lebensohl over weak twos, and I agree with Ted that it is the best of all worlds. Why take the extreme (and unnecessary) view to pass or go all the way to 3NT? Can I be convinced?

Jill Courtney: 3NT. I'm going to game and this looks like the right one.

But why hang partner for balancing? He could have a 4-1-4-4 10-count. If we bid 3NT, don't count on him ever balancing again. If he has extras, he can move on over our value-showing 3. It is so easy to reach 3NT via 3-pass-3-pass-3NT.

Steve and Barbara Shepard: 2NT. Intending to rebid 3NT. Pass is tempting and could be the big winner, but we think the odds are with showing our heart stoppers and sufficient values to try 3NT.

I've never thought it important to differentiate a direct (fast) 3NT from a delayed (slow) 3NT on this auction. Both should promise hearts stopped. Since the lone voters for 2NT had the same intent as the 3NT bidders, I've assigned them the same (poor) score.

Frank Stewart: Pass. I do have a good opening lead. I expect to be +300 or more if North has a sound reopening double or more.

But why should it be sound?

David Berkowitz (with Michael Ware, similarly): Pass. Obviously, this might blow up in my face, but the way players preempt these days, we must take risks to punish them. It is not like we have an automatic game, assuming I knew which one to bid.

I like to punish them, too -- but this is a different situation from the one in which I usually preach passing. When we have no other sensible guess, then passing a takeout double has appeal. David and Michael say we have no automatic game -- I agree. But we have an easy, I'd say automatic, 3 bid. That will get us to game if partner has something, and will get us to a safe partial otherwise.

Peter Fordham (and Henri de Jong, similarly): Pass. Might be a bit tight given partner's propensity to reopen friskily, but I probably have 3+ tricks and a decent lead.

I don't see it. We have three tricks and partner for his balance has maybe two or three. Perhaps I am influenced by having a wire. This deal comes from the 2007 Bermuda Bowl, where passing led to a smooth -470.  

And I thought that Problem 1 was the joke of the month. Here, it takes several looks just to make sure I know which seat I'm in and who bid what. Let's see, I have a strong two-bid in spades and RHO opened 1. I passed (without checking the backs of the cards) and the auction was developing beautifully when partner doubled. I was going to pass and lead the K and extract one of the largest penalties ever against a one-level contract.

But, drat, Jill's 76 virgins will have to wait. East's 2 bid has ruined my dreams. Is there still a penalty in our future? The following three panelists must be related to the seven that made a penalty double with the singleton in problem 1:

Paul Yovich: Dbl. Penalties (though I won't mind if he thinks it's takeout, obviously). I'll lead the K. Partner is overruffing spades and this might get ugly for them. I wouldn't be doing it at other vulnerabilities, but two off is a reasonable minimum expectation, and it could be much better.

One thing I am sure of: Partner will not think this is takeout. It does, however show a penalty double of spades as says some Floridian I know:

David Berkowitz: Dbl. I wish I knew. This shows spades, and though we avoid doubling with a void, perhaps all my pictures will help. It is not like this hand will play well for declarer (unless he has psyched, which I don't believe is a possibility at this vulnerability).

At least he quoted me, as does:

Kate McCallum: Dbl. Double is out of the question with a void. It does show a penalty double of 1, but it also shows some hearts (at least two, IMO). So, now that I've written my own epitaph, I double. Even with RHO's good shape, and their likely good fit, the vulnerable opponents are in a whole lot of trouble, and I'm not letting them off the hook.

Say it ain't so. David and Kate are supposed to have been two of my brainwashing victims. It saddens me that they are willing to defend against a 9- maybe 10-card fit at the two level.

At least I have some panelists that agree with me as to how bizarre this problem is:

Frank Stewart: 3. The Goofy Problem of the Month. We can probably make 4, and at matchpoints with a good game, I'd just bid it. But at IMPs I'll look for 6 since quite possibly we can make that.

Ron Smith: 3. I've never seen this nightmare before and I hope this is forcing.

Yes, this does feel like one of my bad dreams, where there are 17 cards in a suit. Here, in a twist even too bizarre for me to mention "the LAW," many of the panel are trying to play in spades:

Stephen Burgess (with Dave Beauchamp): 4. Anything could be right but 4 should have a play.

Henri de Jong: 4. Does East really have spades? North will have hearts so what is East bidding on?

Peter Fordham: 4. I want to play this hand in spades despite the 5+ spades on my right. Provided partner has some strength in hearts, indicated on the bidding, the hand won't fall apart. I want to make sure partner understands I have lots of chunky spades and a good hand. Pussy footing around at a lower level in the vainglorious hope of finding a better spot is likely to lead to an inglorious end. To hope that partner's hand is good enough for a higher level contract given the probable A9xxx on my right with a heart lead coming is too optimistic.

Mike Lawrence: 3. Forcing and natural. I am worried about missing 6 but can't find a way to hunt for it directly. If North bids 3NT, I will bid 4, also forcing. Who dreamed up the questions this month?

Maybe or maybe not is 3 forcing; this surely is not in any book. As to the questions this month, don't blame me; I'm just a guest here.

While 3 and 4 sure sound natural, the same can't be said about 2. Or can it?

Sartaj Hans: 2. "3 is the cuebid, partner" will be my post-mortem opening comment after the bidding is over.

Patrick Huang: 2. I bid 2 as a cue but if partner plays me for natural it's okay.

Michael Ware: 2. Very cute. East probably hasn't psyched because really who does these days vul vs not, second chair? If so, well done. Perhaps I catch a diamond fit.

Bob Jones: 2. Another brutal problem. We're probably cold for 4, maybe even 6. I'm keeping it as low as I can. I'm hoping West will now be enamored with his big heart fit combined with his spade shortness and offer a heart raise. Too tough for me. Maybe Larry knows what to bid.

Thankfully, the staff said I don't have to submit my bids. This way, I can bash every panelist's choice without having to support any of them. If you held a gun to my head, I think I would guess to bid 4, but not with any conviction.

If 2 might not be a cuebid, surely 3 is:

Andrew Robson: 3. Can't penalize any more, with my void in their suit. 2 is possible, and not natural. But surely the time has come to announce my monster hand, and 3 clearly does that.

Eddie Kantar: 3. It is tempting to bid 4, what I bet most everyone else bid, but 3 followed by 4 must be stronger. Besides, why give up on a 6 without a fight?

Steve and Barbara Shepard: 3. We have big ambitions and so start off with the cheapest cue bid. All spade bids by us would be natural and would prevent us from reaching minor suit contracts, even small slams.

Justin Hackett: 3. Wow, what a hand and what a problem! Bad methods here -- we should be playing penalty doubles at the 1-level!!! Maybe I should bid 4. Don't like double even though it may work.

Of course, Justin is joking about the methods. I believe that 80 years ago, it was possible to double 1 for penalties. Eighty years later, the first hand where it would have been a winning treatment has arrived.

I've killed everyone this month who made a penalty double with a singleton or a void in the enemy suit. Just when I thought I'd seen everything, now we have 3NT bids with a void in their suit:

Ted Chadwick: 3NT. Partner must have some hearts for his double of 1 so 3NT looks like our best game. I know it looks silly but I can't think of anything sensible to do except check the backs of the cards to ensure that we're all playing with the same deck.

"Silly" is an underbid. Surely, when Ted reads the other panelist's choices, he will see something more sensible than 3NT with a void in their suit, wrongsided, and with a heart lead coming.

Jill Courtney: 3NT. This will score no points but I believe it will work. Partner must have a heart control for their bidding and West has no re-entry to mess with future heart leads. I am confident of nine tricks one way or the other.

I am confident that 3NT from our side is a bad idea. Jill, I regret that I have to assign you more than 0 points, since there were actually two votes for 3NT. But, I might have to fly down to Australia again soon, and have a long chat with you. I'll be monitoring your comments in future issues, keeping one eye on you, and the other eye on Qantas airfares. If your answers don't improve, I'm on my way to straighten you out.

Thanks to Australian Bridge for inviting me to be the guest moderator. I hope I didn't wear out my welcome!