What’s your call?
| 3♦ | 3♥ | 3♠ | 3NT | |
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass | Dbl |
Anyone up for a bodacious 3NT? No? Nobody? I thought not.
There sure is a lot of negative doubling on this hand without four hearts and/or four spades.
Cohen says that’s OK. “Double does not guarantee the majors – good thing, since I have neither of them. I am dreaming about hearing 3NT from partner. If he bids 4♥ or 4♠, I will have to retreat to 5♦ .”
Double by Lawrence. “This part of the auction is bad enough. It rates to get worse.”
Sanborn calls double the last chance to get to 3NT.
Falk doubles, also hoping for 3NT. “If not, I can bid diamonds at the four or five level. This hand is just not worth 4♣ or any other diamond raise at this point, and 3♦ – although it will lead to a plus score – is just not enough.”
Stack: “Let’s start with the premise that this hand is too strong to bid only 3♦ . This leaves us with 4♣, which takes us past a possible 3NT game from partner’s side. Even with no length in the majors, this is the call to elicit 3NT from partner. If he doesn’t bid 3NT, we will retreat to 5♦ .”
“Nasty!” Boehm exclaims. “Perhaps partner can bid 3NT. If he jumps to 4♥, I’m tempted to pass. After 3♠, I’ll correct to 4♦ , but the level is unclear. The most unwelcome response is pass, because of my diamond fit.”
Robinson doubles: “If partner can bid 3NT, that would be great. Otherwise we’ll play in 5♦ .”
Meckstroth doubles, but notes, “This is a good hand for transfers. I could bid 3♠ to show diamonds.”
Colchamiro doubles, too, “hoping against hope to hear 3NT. If partner gives me 3♥ or 3♠, it’s 5♦ from me. The other choice is 4♣, giving up on 3NT.”
The 4♣ cuebidders:
Korbel: “Very difficult problem. In my book, the options are 4♣ or double. Double aims for the brass ring of partner bidding 3NT, whereas 4♣ will allow for better exploration for game, slam or even partscore. I don’t think 4♣ forces beyond 4♦ .”
Lee agrees, saying that doubling to try to get to 3NT feels like a pipe dream.
Weinstein gives up on the “magic” 3NT. “4♣ gives us a chance to get to 6♦ . Because we have both 3♦ and 4♦ available with invitational hands, I think 4♣ should be game-forcing in diamonds.”
Poor Barry. “Aargh! I’ve never seen a problem like this before, though it can’t be totally uncommon. This is not nearly as good a hand as it looks. What to do? Cuebid and blame partner: tried and tested, works for me.”
The Sutherlins opt for the simplicity of 4♦ . “Let’s invite game in diamonds. We’re a little heavy to just invite, but a cuebid of 4♣ may cause confusion if partner then thinks his 4♦ bid would be forcing.”
Hampson’s previously dim outlook got dimmer. “3♦ . I am going low and trying for a plus facing 12–14 with no club stopper.”
