What’s your call?
| 3♠ | 3NT | |||
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass | Dbl |
Meyers is part of the 4♣ crowd. “I don’t think I have enough high-card points and/or spades to double and correct 4♦ to 4♠.”
The Sutherlins, 4♣: “We can’t afford to hear diamonds if we double. We may be able to reach spades if partner has five of them.”
4♣ by Lawrence, more kvetching. “It would be nice if this showed clubs and spades – an imperfect version of leaping Michaels. One nice result of 4♣ is that we may reach 6♣. It’s easy to imagine some fitting hands partner could hold.”
Rigal: “For my regular partnerships, 4♣ would show clubs and spades (but 5–5, I admit). Again, passing is not an option, and 3NT with a void might not meet with partner’s approval. So what else is left? Double seems even more dangerous than on the previous deal, after which partner told me never to do that again with a side-suit singleton. He never mentioned anything about a void, though …”
Boehm makes the distinction between this hand and the last one: “Unlike problem No. 2, we’ll often get another chance to introduce spades.”
Falk says he’d like to double, but falls back on 4♣. “Here I can show my clubs without encouraging partner to bid diamonds. Also, my spades are less robust than those on problem No. 2, so there’s less chance that 4♠ is our spot. If 4♠ is our spot, we can still get there over 4♣.”
Korbel: “There’s no shame in bidding your long suit when you are not sure what to do. We still might back into spades. 3NT is a little too much for me, even at matchpoints.”
Lee says he’d gladly double if the minor suits were reversed. “But as it
Weinstein’s 4♣: “If you were trying to find the limit for a double, you exceeded it.”
Meckstroth likes the flexibility of double. “It keeps spades and notrump in the game.”
Robinson copied and pasted his response from Problem 2: “Close your eyes and double. Good partners bid 4♠…” etc., etc., etc.
Hampson doubles, saying he likes to be consistent. “Our target game is 4♠, and 4♣ might leave us in a silly contract at the four level with game available. 3NT could be right, but it is too heroic for my taste.”
