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 |
Colchamiro bids 4♦ . He dissects the hand: “I have three big assets: the two red queens and the singleton spade. But it’s really a guess as to how many aces partner has. We’re vulnerable at IMPs, so I push slightly.”
4♦ by Lawrence. “On all hands where partner has four diamonds, I don’t want to defend. Slam is possible on these cards. 4♥ might be best, but I can’t accommodate that possibility. Against this, passing 3♣ doubled is possible — however, we are vulnerable and we may have a game or slam. I do not like passing.”
Robinson likes 4♦ . “Leaves room for partner to bid 4♥ if he doesn’t like diamonds.”
Cohen bids 4♦ . “Too strong for only 3♦ . Picture:
♠A x x x ♥A K x x x ♦ A J x ♣x.
Wrong for 3NT with only one stopper and wrong for a leave-in since the opponents have a secondary spade fit and it might play well for them.”
“Partner has asked me to bid,” says Stack, “and this is actually an excellent playing hand. A jump to 4♦ is in order to show the playing potential. Passing the double when we have a six-card suit that partner has asked us to bid is not a possibility.”
Meyers, too: “4♦ , highly invitational — this is what I have. 4♥ is my second choice.”
Boehm “stretches just a tad for a vulnerable game” to bid 4♦ . “Might choose 3♦ at matchpoints to protect the plus.”
“4♦ , too good for 3♦ ,” says Rigal. “Since 4♣ would suggest both majors, we need to get the strength of our hand across and hope that if partner is 4=6=2=1, he can bid 4♥, which we will pass gracefully.”
There’s always a cuebidder (or two or three) in the bunch.
“What a hand we have!” exclaims Korbel with 4♣. “It’s close for me between 4♣ and 5♦ , offering partner a choice. Partner will bid any suit in which he has extra length (4♦ with four diamonds, 4♥ with six hearts or five great ones, 4♠ with four spades). I will pass 4♥ but convert 4♠ to 5♦ .”
Likewise, Weinstein: “4♣ is forcing to game, trying to find the right strain. I have a great hand if I catch a diamond fit. If I don’t, we might make 4♥. I see red at IMPs, I charge! If we were not vulnerable, I might settle for 4♦ .”
Lee uses 4♣ to communicate the flexibility of his hand. “I’m showing a good hand, but because I don’t have four spades or three hearts, partner can infer that I have diamonds.”
Sanborn didn’t think she had enough for the five level on No. 1, but there’s no stopping her now. “5♦ . If partner has a club, then it is likely she has more high cards. With a club void, 5♦ may not be enough, but it is all I have.”
Because the majority of the panel voted strongly for more aggressive action, the scoring dings those who took a dimmer view of the hand.
Falk, for one, is content with 3♦ . “I have a good hand, but bidding more now may not lead us to whatever game, if any, we can make. If partner has extras, he’ll bid again and then I can move towards game. At this point, however, 4♦ is too much (may leave North with nowhere to go and may lose hearts), 3♥ is too soon (diamonds may be far superior), 4♣ is off the charts and 3NT is absurd.”
3♦ from Hampson: “I have a pretty good hand, but need too much to leap in diamonds. Hopefully partner has a 3♥ correction that I can raise.”
The Sutherlins hang back with 3♦ : “The ♣K has little offensive value. If partner can’t act over 3♦ , there is little chance to bid and make game.”
