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 |
Falk thinks he’s probably “the lone voice in the wilderness” bidding 3♠, but he’s not! “I am sure partner has a good hand. With a sub-minimum hand, say 4=5=0=4 that doubled based on distribution, North would pass 2NT. My hearts are OK, but I’m not worth 4♣ and, if partner is short in clubs, 3NT is probably right. Because I don’t know which game to play, I’ll let partner know that I have uncertainty and perhaps he will know what to do.”
Weinstein bids 3♠. “Partner is accepting our game invitation with 4–5 in the majors. There aren’t enough high-card points for him to have a huge hand, and with just hearts and a good hand, he would have balanced 2♥. 3♠ shows our four-card spade suit and good clubs — we wouldn’t have bid 2NT holding four spades without a good club stopper. With bad spades, partner can choose 3NT. Usually 4♠ will play a trick better than 3NT if partner has good spades.”
3♠ by Sanborn: “I denied spades once. It is not my job to do it again. The 4–4 fit, if we have it, should play at least a trick better than notrump. Partner will know that I chose notrump over spades the first time and can still slide back to 3NT with bad spades.”
3♠ from Kennedy. “I’ve already said I have a balanced hand with opening points, so 3♠ is forcing.”
The Sutherlins agree that 3♠ is forcing. “We may still have a 4–4 spade fit. “If partner bids 3NT, do we sit or bid 4♥?”
“This hand could play in several games,” says Stack, who chooses 3NT. “4♠ and 4♥ are also possibilities. It is even possible there could be slam in a major. Because there is no clear continuation that will get us to the correct game in the majors, and because there’s a possibility of three club stoppers holding ♣A J 10 x, let’s bid the obvious 3NT.”
Korbel bids 3NT. “It’s not clear to me if partner’s 3♥ call shows tons of extra values, but I do believe it is 100% forcing. I don’t fit hearts and have the other suits pretty nicely stopped (especially clubs), so I’ll offer him 3NT. If he cuebids at the four level, I will offer encouragement.”
3NT by Lawrence: “This auction should show a good hand from North. If he has a weak double, he just passes 2NT.”
3NT by Meyers: “3♥ is offering a choice of games in my book.”
There’s a healthy contingent voting for the 4♣ cuebid. Colchamiro explains. “Of course 3♥ is forcing, and my hand offers good chances for slam if partner has the good hand he has shown. The question is, what would partner have bid with:
♠K x ♥A Q J x x ♦ A Q x x ♣x x
in the balancing seat? To me, that is a 1♥ call, not double, so I’m presuming partner has more, one way or the other. In context, my red kings and ♣A are huge.”
“4♣ — finally an easy one!” exclaims Rigal. “If we cannot cuebid here, when can we? We showed up to a minimum opening and partner is unlimited. By the way, spades can’t be our trump suit. Partner would cuebid 3♣ with both majors, even if he was 4–5 in spades and hearts.”
Lee leaps to life. “4♣. I have a pretty big hand. To me, partner is showing a hand too good to overcall 1♥, and we can tell that it’s probably based on shape and not just points. Having the ♣A here with minimal waste in the suit is really big. I would guess partner has a singleton club to justify his aggressive bidding. 3NT by me here would usually be based on a slow club holding such as ♣K Q x x, which is not useful opposite a singleton.”
Boehm adds up the assets — “Nice support and minimal waste in spades” — and whips out the 4♣ cuebid. “Might catch:
♠x ♥A Q J x x x ♦ A J x ♣K x x
or similar to produce a slam.”
“Something doesn’t add up,” says Hampson, who also bids 4♣. “But I have a great hand for partner anyway.”
