What’s your call?
| 4NT | ||||
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass | Dbl |
The panel was given the option of throwing this problem out if they hated the 1NT call. The earlier responders said they could live with 1NT; the later responders are singing quite a different tune.
Here’s Lee, for example. “Pass. I’m not a fan of 1NT. For what it’s worth, I don’t think we are in a forcing pass situation.”
Korbel PASSES in all uppercase letters with extra emphasis on the nonforcing quality of his PASS. “The opponents are vulnerable and we are not, so this is not a forcing auction. I don’t see where even a single defensive trick is coming from, and I do not expect to make 4NT, so I make a nonforcing pass.”
Robinson passes. “I think double should show a spade trick. 5♦ could be a good save.”
Ditto Stack: “I cannot double with this hand holding zero aces or kings. Partner was surely expecting to take many diamond tricks in 3NT. I would not be surprised if the opponents made 4♠ or went down only one. Having said that, my hand is not going to be the one that takes the sacrifice.”
Pass by Hampson: “Although I would not have bid 1NT (it is a really bad hand), I have no wastage. Partner likely has a strong hand with diamonds, which makes bidding 5♦ more appealing. I expect partner to double most of the time when it is correct, but if he bids 5♦ , we were probably nip and tuck to beat 4♠. And we might actually make 5♦ !”
Falk, too. “I don’t want partner to bid, but neither do I want to double in front of him. 3NT might have been predicated on ♦ A K J x x x x (x). I don’t really have a defensive trick in spades, or in any suit, so I see no reason to turn minus 620 into minus 790. Partner knows why he bid 3NT; if he has a lot of defense, he can double, but I don’t think we are in a forcing auction. Partner knows the enemies are vulnerable, and he should use his judgment without further bad influence from me. This is a tough opening-lead problem against 4♠, doubled or not. I think I probably would lead a trump.”
Meckstroth passes. “I don’t have enough in spades to double, and I don’t want to stop partner from saving.”
Weinstein, who hates 1NT, bids 5♦ . “I must be sitting in for whomever bid 1NT because I’m sure I didn’t do it! What is going on on this hand? I think partner has long diamonds and East has a very nice black two-suiter. My 1NT got us into this mess, and I don’t think I can let partner decide at this point, so I will step up and bid 5♦ as a save – and hope they don’t double.”
The Sutherlins don’t care for 1NT either. “It was an overbid with little merit – 7 points and no ace, king, 10 or 9. There is lots of distribution on this deal. The opponents committed for game even though spades are breaking badly. Partner hoped to run diamonds and make a skinny 3NT. Saving feels right.”
Meyers has thought her 5♦ through: “I do not think my pass would be forcing at this vulnerability. I think the opponents have a good chance of making 4♠, and I also think that partner has long diamonds and that 3NT is a bit gambling. I think I am saving.” Kennedy agrees – 5♦ . “Partner’s 3NT call showed long diamonds. He has a good hand with no spades.”
Three panelists go for all the gusto with a double.
There’s Rigal: “Once in a while they may be able to scramble 10 tricks, but I do not think we can come close to making 5♦ or 4NT. This time my double should suggest defending and I do not need a powerhouse on defense to make this call. By the way, I would have passed 1♠. I see a foot, not a hand in front of me.”
And Cohen, who explains, “Partner probably isn’t void in spades, and my slow heart trick gives me enough defense.”
And Sanborn makes three. “I don’t want partner to bid on, hoping that I have good cards. It is possible that the opponents might make 4♠, and RHO is likely 5–5 or so. I don’t picture my partner with a void, though, so maybe declarer will not be able to handle a 4–1 trump break.
