Bidrush #2

ACTION	MARKS	PANEL VOTES
3 NT	10	10
2	7	3
3	6	3
2 NT	2	0
3	0	0
4	0	0
4 NT	0	0
2	0	0
4	0	0
5	0	0

A sizeable majority, with two-thirds of the panel choosing 3NT, showing a hand too strong for a non-forcing jump to 3♦. Some were content with their choice:

BRINK: 3NT. Usually this shows long diamonds and a hand like this.
BOCCHI: 3NT. Normally shows these cards, perhaps with the additional ♦J.
CHAGAS: 3NT. Maybe my diamonds could be a little bit better, but I can find no other bid to describe my length and strength.

Whilst a couple had misgivings about the choice of opening bid:

VERBEEK: 3NT. I wish I had opened the hand with a strong 2♣. Now I am hoping we do not miss slam. Such a nice hand.
COHEN: 3NT. Way too strong for only 3♦, so it is this (which would typically be more in diamonds, less on the side), or a phony reverse or jump-shift. I think a 2♣ opening then 3♦ would have been more comfortable.

Some settle for the majority choice as they like the alternatives less:

ROBSON: 3NT. It's either this or fabricate 3♣, which is not my style. I like to play Gazzilli here, so 2♣ showing any 16+. 3NT is not ideal: we may miss a slam, and my spades are better than partner may expect, but that may work to my advantage if West leads a studious ♠K from ♠Kxx, dummy tabling ♠Qxxxx
DE WIJS: 3NT. Feels like a good hand to play a strong club system because of the good slam potential. I hate fake 2♥/3♣ bids, so I am stuck with 3NT for now.
BIRD: 3NT. I don’t see how bidding a false 2♥ or 3♣ is any better than this. Indeed, both those efforts look risky to me. I considered 2NT, but it’s surely better to advertise the good diamonds. 

David is the only panellist to mention 2NT, although that was the choice of nearly a quarter of competition entrants. Of course, it shows the general high-card strength, so I have awarded it some marks, but it does not get across the extra playing strength afforded by the long diamonds. Partner will just raise to game, never thinking about a diamond slam with two low cards in the suit. So, what of those much-despised alternatives?

BROCK: 3♣. I have the agreement that if partner raises and I go back to diamonds, then I don’t really have a club suit. I want to make a forcing bid that leaves me as much room as possible. Second choice 3NT.
WANG: 3♣. I like 3NT to show a singleton or two small spades, and the diamond suit needs to be a bit stronger.

Zia also wouldn't have started from here.

ZIA: 3♣. I would have opened 2♣ and rebid 3NT showing a long minor. I now bid 3♣ as I am too strong for 3NT. (In my system 3♥ shows a forcing jump in diamonds.)

Brad offers an observation often proposed in these forums.

MOSS: 2♥. The least of all evils. When in doubt, make the cheapest bid.

Thomas also makes a very valid point.

BESSIS: 2♥. I am too strong for a 3NT rebid, so I have to "invent" a second suit to start a forcing process. 2♥ leaves us way more room than 3♣, so that's my bid.

Eric delves deeper into the options.

KOKISH: 2♥. 3NT shows solid diamonds and a stiff spade for many (most) of us, and whether one prefers the “safer” 3♣ to the cheaper force of 2♥ is a personal choice. A heart raise would confirm 5+♠ and so would not be tragic, but this complex hand needs room to grow and that risk is worth taking. 3♣ often forces a strain choice on responder when his diamond support is modest. If 3♦ were the default continuation with no clear direction and strain issues, I’d like 3♣ a bit better.

Make of the debate what you may, but we have a clear majority for 3NT amongst our experts. When the hand occurred at the table, partner held Kxxxx/xx/xx/Axxx so 6♦ was a better contract than 3NT (2-2 diamonds or 3-3 spades in 6♦, whereas you need diamonds 2-2 in 3NT). Diamonds were 2-2, so 3NT and 6♦ were both making. If you were going to stop in game, though, you wanted to be in 5♦, but I suspect that 3NT would probably have ended the auction most of the time. Whether the alternatives would have fared any better is not clear, although perhaps 3♣ would have highlighted the heart weakness. Readers' options which failed to score include 3♦, which is clearly not enough on this hand, and 4♦, which usually shows primary spade support, something like AKxx/Qx/AKQJx/xx, so not this hand at all.