Panel Votes Call Points 7 3 100 1 3 60 1 4 30

Lawrence: 3. It is totally foolish to be in this position. A strong jump shift to 2 would solve all problems here. For players who do not remember what a strong jump shift is and who started with one heart, I bid 3, and later 4 unless I got something surprising from partner. A jump to 4 now would show a less suitable slam hand. Perhaps one with the Kx of diamonds instead of the Ax.

Since we are on a game-force, and partner is at least 5-6+ (in my view) in the black-suits, 3 then 4 would be a mild-slam-try a la the Texas/Jacoby Transfer Adjunct. I think Michael is right that a leap to 4 after 2 is weaker than this approach.

Wirgren: 3. I expect South to bid 3 with doubt (short hearts, no diamond stopper, not 5-6), 3NT with a diamond stopper, 4 with 5-6, or 4/ with heart support/tolerance. I would have preferred a 2 response though, to stress my powerful suit at once.

Yes, this hand appears to be a normal strong-jump-shift. Even more science from Curtis...

Cheek: 3. Can partner bid 2 with KQxx xx xxx AKxx, or does he show 5-5, or even 6-5? I'm of the school that this auction shows specifically 4-2-3-4 with no diamond stopper, otherwise that hand is unbiddable. With 5-5 pard always opens 1 unless planning to jump shift. With 5-6 he bids 3 over 2. At least we always have some idea what's going on after 2. Given lack of discussion I guess I'll just rebid 3 for now. I'll bid 4 over 3 or 3N, 4 over 4, and 4NT over 4 (playing him for 4-2-3-4).

Aviram: 3. Does partner have to be 6-5, or can he be 5-5? If 5-5 is possible, then 3 is clear. Opposite 6-5 it's tougher: The most likely slam is 6, but the safest game is 4. Since a good slam needs a few specific cards, for now I'll aim for the game. I still might get the chance to show my club-fit, and invite slam over 3 or 3NT from partner.

I suppose it depends on your agreements. Curtis' methods are certainly playable. The panel appear split on exact black-suit lengths, which does complicate things.

Bird: 3. It does not look right to commit to clubs after just one mention of this heart suit. Whether I will hear anything useful from partner is uncertain. I am reluctant to bid 4 instead, with good potential in clubs.

Wildavsky: 3. I want to leave open the possibility of playing in 6 or 7 clubs if partner holds no hearts, or perhaps even if he has one.

So, emphasizing hearts wins the day. Though, I like all but Ron's middle sentence ...

Smith: 3. Let's start here and progress further. We could end in spades. When all else fails ....

Spades certainly has the least amount of trumps, and doesn't seem a likely landing pad.

Herbst: 4. Partner is showing 5-5 or 6-5, but my hand may play better in hearts than in clubs (may be able to throw clubs on spades). Partner is limited, so slam is unlikely, and even opposite a nice hand like: KQxxx x Ax KJxxx slam is against the odds.

But, why make that precipate decision when a forcing 3 will get some kind of response out of partner? I would open 1 with Ophir's example hand, as would most North Americans. Mid-range five-five in the blacks aren't easy to bid in either method.