What’s your call?
| 3♥ | 3♠ | 3NT | ||
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass |
Sanborn likes 4♣. “Brave as I am about bidding 3NT with Q–x, 4♣ is a really viable alternative.”
Korbel doesn’t like his 4♣. “Yuck.”
Lawrence agrees with Korbel. “I don’t expect to make this, but setting 3♦ doubled isn’t likely. Worse, even if we can set 3♦ , we may fail to do that when my partner leads the king from his doubleton ♥K x. One nice feature of 4♣ is that my clubs are so good, I may avoid a double and at the same time, keep partner from raising with only four of them.”
Meyers sighs. “The bravehearted will bid 3NT.”
Colchamiro calls 4♣ routine. “What else is there to do? Too much concentrated club stuff to consider passing – which I might do if my hand was:
♠K x ♥A J x x x ♦ x x ♣K J x x.
As for 3NT, who says we have nine tricks even if we survive trick one?”
Stack bids 4♣. “Partner probably has clubs, and we love clubs. With a partial stopper, 3NT is, as always, a possible call. But vulnerable, the cost of being wrong could be really costly.”
4♣ by Meckstroth, who says, “It is tempting to try 3NT, but far from clear.”
Cohen bids 4♣, but also calls 3NT tempting – “the ♦ Q 5 could be golden opposite, say, ♦ A x – but I’ll avoid that homerun or strikeout action. In this problem and No. 2, my opponents’ three-level preemption doesn’t make me happy.”
Rigal, just like Cohen, bids 4♣ and then lets loose with a jealous rant. “Oh, dear. Larry Cohen will pass and tell us the Law of Total Masterminding makes it clear that we won’t be facing:
♠K Q x x ♥x x ♦ A x ♣x x x x x.
I’m not so sure. That’s why I skulk at the back of his classes throwing spit-balls at him while he runs cruises…”
Using uncharacteristically un-Southern belle language, Kennedy calls this “a pretty revolting problem.” She bids 4♣.
Falk is also a 4♣ bidder. “I’m sure there will be votes for 3NT, but if that is wrong, we’ll be down three or four or more off the top, which means the IMP odds are not what we need. Usually we figure 37% is OK for a vulnerable game, but only if we are down only one when we are wrong. Indeed, give partner:
♠A Q x x ♥K x ♦ K x ♣10 x x x x,
a sound negative double, and 3NT has no play whatsoever. We’ll be down at least three and North will be quite vexed, having produced extra high cards, a diamond stopper and a heart fit. He’ll be looking for a new partner even as the opponents are cashing their winners.”
The bravehearted Hampson is in a 3NT groove. “If partner has anything in diamonds, then this will be as good a spot as any. 4♣ propels us beyond our target game and 3♥ is just awful.” Robinson feels more confident about 3NT than he did on problem No. 1.
Robinson feels more confident about 3NT than he did on problem No. 1. “This time, West is nonvulnerable, so 3NT could easily be where we belong.”
Lee calls 3NT a little uncomfortable. “But pass seems really speculative and nothing else fits.”
Weinstein’s just happy playing a little poker. “3NT. A stopper is as a stopper does.”
