You, South, hold AKJ10973   4   65   A74

This may look like an ordinary problem, but it has some peculiarities about it. First, anything you bid is forcing! Most of the time when you say a bid is forcing, you mean forcing on your partner, but in this case, it's forcing on the opening bidder's side!

Why? The reason is that most people play that if you open a strong, game-forcing 2, your side is required to keep bidding until either you reach game or double the opponents for penalties. Also, since all passes by the opponents are forcing, all doubles should probably be penalty, but I wouldn't bet my last thingamajig on that. So the hand is a bit weird, but luckily we have a panel that's also a bit weird to figure it out. Let's hear what they have to say.

Nate Ward:  4S.  I've seen this show before. A 2S or 3S bid doesn't come close to describing this hand. If I go for 500, so be it, but it is better than guessing what to do when the 2C opener jumps to 4H next round.

Jack Spear:  4S. Vulnerability is for children.

And speaking for the cute little devils ...

Larry Matheny:  2S. I'm a coward at this vulnerability.

Mike Giacaman:  2S. East can have two types of hands, and it would help to find out which it is. This is the wrong vulnerability to commit to 4S. 3S will not do better at keeping them from getting to their likely 4H game.

I'm hardly a CIA operative, but 2S might give away more intel than it gets for us.

The plurality of the panel went for the in-between 3S bid. Their logic was:

John R Mayne:  3S.  Obviously, I could have less defense for this, but this seems the right compromise between the light over-aggression of 4S and the abject cowardice of 2S.

Mark Kessler:  3S.  It is all about pressure, and 3S puts far more pressure on the opponents than 2S. It pretty much shows what we have, and our trumps are so good it will be hard for the opponents to double.

Karen Walker:  3S. The strategy is to use enough room to cramp their auction, but not so much that they just shrug their shoulders and double for -500.
 

You, South, hold 4   AQ76   AJ975   Q83

We're running a little short on things to bid. Passing 1NT is iffy since partner has at most three spades opposite our one, and 2 would certainly be a reverse that promises extra values. So, let's let the panel root around in the remaining garbage and see what they come up with.

One possibility is rebidding the diamond suit:

Dr Warren Bosch:  2D. I hope East-West don't find their 9+-card spade fit.

Larry Matheny:  2D. We have too few spades for 1NT.

The majority of the panel had the same concern, but offered what they thought was a more flexible option:

Harold Feldheim:  2C. Rebidding 2D on this anemic suit is ugly. Even if clubs turns out to be a 4-3 fit, you're ruffing spades in the short hand. Bye the bye, where's the spade suit?

Manuel Paulo:  2C. Partner should rebid 2D with three diamonds. With any other shape, 2C is our best strain.

Strain indeed.

Larry Rabideau:  2C. We may not end up in our best minor, but either one minor should play better than notrump.

Bev Nelson:  2C. Odds are we have a club fit. If we don't, my smart partner will bid 2D.

Bridge Baron:  Pass. Not rebidding a 5-card minor, way too weak for a reverse, no other alternative.

Let's see:  We can't do this, won't do that, and eventually we do nothing. Our cyber bridge player sounds a lot like our national legislators.

You, South, hold A3   Q764   1072   KQ65

The majority thought a club raise would show their invitational values.

Mark Kessler:  3C. Seems about right on values. Partner can still make a move.

Dr. Warren Bosch:  3C. My hand is too weak to venture a notrump bid with an expected spade lead.

The rest of the panel believed their hand warranted stronger action, and they came up with four different advances:

Nate Ward:  3S. I'd like to bid 3.5 clubs, but I can't.

John R Mayne:  3S. 2D didn't show extras and 3C is non-forcing.

Karen Walker:  3S. The negative double didn't show diamonds, so partner's 2D should show reversing values. Even if you disagree with that premise, this hand is too strong for a competitive 3C, which you might bid with an 8-count.

Scott Merritt:  4C. This seems like a realistic value bid.

Tom Kniest:  2NT. Right on values. We could have nine peelers.

Jack Spear:  3NT. Someone needs to bid 3NT when it makes. Partner's 2D showed extra values. There's no room to fool around.

Bridge is getting so complicated these days. There's not even a consensus on what strength partner is showing for his 2D rebid. How would your partner interpret 2D here? It's a good topic for discussion.

You, South, hold  AKQ7  Q6532  AQ  J4

Well, we have quite a stack of opponent's suit, but what exactly is it a stack of? With only one defensive trick and only one stopper in hearts, maybe we should seek greener pastures. One approach is: 

Tom Kniest:  Double. Seems like the only viable first call.

That's what I bid, too, but I was hoping someone would tell me what to do after partner bids of 3 of a minor.

Larry Matheny:  2NT. I wish I had better heart spots.

Manuel Paulo:  2NT. My hand, more or less, fits in with the general description.

Karen Walker:  2NT. I suppose this is "obvious", but I still have a feeling that 2S is better with this particular hand.

Mark Kessler:  2NT. Best shot for game, and it doesn't mean we can't play in spades.

Hmm ... not playing in spades is pretty much exactly what I thought it meant. With all the worries about spades, maybe we should consider:

Harold Feldheim:  2S. Ugh, I always hold hands like this. Partner is likely to hold spade length since both North and West are short in hearts and as such, the hand should play well. My heart spots are too weak for notrump. If it doesn't work ... well, sometimes preempts actually hurt!

These "ugh!" hands are why the District 8 forum was invented!

You, South, hold  AK10  K3  7  AKJ7542

What's your call?

If we're religious up-the-line bidders, it's very likely that partner has five spades, which complicates our master plan a bit. That challenge explains why our panel and solvers came up with nine possible plans for the rest of the auction (plus a few more that didn't make the scoring chart). The most popular choice of the panelists was:

John R Mayne:  2H.  It looks sick, but it also looks right. 3C is insufficiently forcing, and nothing else is close to right. If partner raises hearts, she has five spades and we can do something productive. A 2NT negative from partner will help us pull in the reins.

Jack Spear:  2H. I'm going to describe long clubs, extra values, spade support and short diamonds. What's not to like?

Well, maybe the hearts.

Mark Kessler:  3NT. Notrump pays the most, and it is matchpoints. If we can get the lead, we'll have a play.

Here's a guy who really has the basics nailed down:

Mike Giacaman. 2D. I'll support spades at my next bid.

Yeah, sort of like 2H, except saving some bidding space?

Dr Warren Bosch:  4NT. If pard has no aces, I'll play 5C. If he has one or two aces, I'll bid 6C or 6NT.

What about spades?

Larry Rabideau:  4C. We like this rebid to be non-forcing (inappropriate here?) and show only 3 spades. That's not Bridge World Standard, but having such super spades and no hint of another sensible call, we'll put a club in with the spades and bid it anyway.

Larry Matheny:  4D. I'm treating my spades as a four-card suit.

Or partner's as a five-card suit.

You, South, hold J92   KQ3   AK653   AK

20 HCP is a lot more than I'm usually staring at, so it seems like I should do something, but what? Some panelists chose to back off and hope for a small plus score (or at least avoid a large minus):

Jack Spear:  Pass. Looks like we'll have to defend, as there aren't many points left for partner. I hope to have better luck with my next 20-point hand.

About 80 percent of the panel and Solvers forged on, with varying ideas about where they were heading: 

Manuel Paulo:  2S. I intend to pass 3C, but I'm hoping partner bids something else.

Nate Ward:  2S. I admire anyone who passes here, as it could easily be the winner.

John R Mayne:  2NT. I can't bring myself to pass. Double would be a serious error. It's hard penalty, as I've already shown hearts.

Scott Merritt:  3D. I was planning on doubling and bidding diamonds, so I'll follow through.

Mark Kessler:  3D. Matchpoints makes people do silly things. I need one more diamond for this to make sense, but I just have too much to pass and my next double would be for penalty. A small plus against 2H would be an average at best, so go for the gusto.

Tom Kniest:  Double. I'll show a big hand and see what develops. 2NT is too rich and any notrump contract should be played from partner's side.

What will most likely develop is that you'll play 2H doubled. As several panelists pointed out, double of a suit you've already shown is penalty.