Panel Votes Call Points 10 4 100 1 4 50 1 4 30 1 3NT 20

Cheek: 4. On the cusp, but the theory of risking an extra level to reach the right strain is a sound one. Hope partner doesn't bid too much.

Smith: 4. Going for the overbid in order to play in the right suit.

Lawrence: 4. If East has a stiff diamond, we rate to have a play for four-of-a-major. It might be cold anyway. Cue-bidding and getting to the correct major is important enough that overbidding a little will pay for itself in the long run. NOTE that it might be necessary to play four hearts from partner's side of the table, (for example). If you declare in four hearts, a stiff spade lead could be embarrassing. From partner's side, four hearts might be cold.

An excellent point. Right-siding the contract might be just as important as strain selection.

Herbst: 4. My hand is just enough for a game suggestion (in the right major) - opposite 12 working points (KQxx Qxxx x AJxx) we have game, and partner should have that much for his bid. 4 asks him to choose a major.

Aviram: 4. A slight overbid, but I prefer this gamble to guessing where's the fit.

Wildavsky: 4. We have play for game opposite Axxx Qxxx x Axxx. Bidding 3 or 3 risks going down in a part-score when we could be making a game in the other major.

Wirgren: 4. A slight stretch, but we are vulnerable and partner's average for his take-out double is higher than over a 1 opening.

They make a good case, and it really seems quite clear that our gain ratio will be much higher with a 4 advance. Are there any possible other choices?

Bird: 3. Yes, I realize that most of your panel will bid 4, claiming that it is more important to land in the right suit. I'm afraid I don't agree, and will stoically accept 30 points from your Director as a penalty for my beliefs.

Alright, David - just for you .. 30 points. However, if you stoically believe 3 is right, why not tell us why?