What’s your call?
| 2♠ | 2NT | |||
| 3♣ | 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 |
When this problem was posed in the District 8 Problem Solvers forum, there was a dead tie between 2♠ and pass. Votes were also cast for 3♥ and 4♥.
Nearly all of our panelists, however, choose to move forward, and 2♠ is their mode of transportation.
Cohen explains. “Aside from patterning out and showing a good hand, the best reason for bidding 4♠ is that we might have a 4–4 spade fit – much better than a 4–3 heart fit. If I didn’t have extras, I’d reluctantly pass 2♥.”
Meckstroth agrees. “It is fairly likely we belong in spades here. It is convenient that I have such nice extra values.”
Hampson: “I am slightly heavy for pass, so I will pattern out and bid where I live all at one time.”
Stack, too: “This hand is good enough for another bid. We have already shown our three-card support for hearts, so because it’s possible that partner has four spades and up to 10 points, let’s advance with 2♠. Also, the fact that partner is marked for shortness in clubs and this hand has no wasted club values is a great asset.”
The Sutherlins use 2♠ to ease partner’s possible dilemma. “When partner doesn’t have enough to try for game with 8–9 HCP, he is locked into a 2♥ rebid, even though he might have four spades.”
Robinson’s take: “I have no wasted values in clubs and I have extras. Maybe we have a spade fit.”
Sanborn reduces the problem to its simplest solution. “How to show a good hand? Bid again. What to bid? How about another four-card suit. We could easily have a spade or heart game.”
Falk’s analysis goes like this: “Whatever high cards we’re missing, a huge part of the enemy strength is in clubs. Because my partner and left-hand opponent rate to be short in clubs, this is great! Suppose North has:
♠x x x x ♥K x x x ♦ K x x x ♣x ,
we have play for 4♠ but North could hardly bid more than 2♥.”
Boehm: “2♠. Could belong in game in spades or hearts. Let’s find out.”
Korbel, too: “Just enough values to try one more time.”
And Lee: “Because we don’t need much to make game opposite short clubs, 2♠ seems right to keep the ball rolling.”
Rigal describes 2♠ as natural and extras. “I hesitate to say that a call is obvious (Eric Kokish has barred ‘automatic’ as a description on vugraph), but if ever a call stood out at first or second glance, this is it. Hope I’m not a solo on the panel.”
Colchamiro is positively fearless. “2♠, in case partner has four hearts and four spades. If partner raises spades, I’ll bid four. Over anything else, I’m bidding 4♥. This hand is ooh-la-la for a crossruff, even in 4♥ on a 4–3 fit.”
Meyers calls it close between 2♠ and pass. “I think I have too much to pass, so I bid 2♠.”
Lawrence is the passer. “Tough. If you wish to bid, 2♠ is the way to continue. But only if it is not forcing. If East had passed, I wouldn’t voluntarily get us to 3♥ because I have only threecard support. I choose pass because I am not in a position to guarantee safety at the three level.”
Kennedy plows ahead with 3♣. “My hand warrants another forward-going call.”
