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 |
Lee likes 2♠ – he really, really likes it. “The alternatives of 2♦ and 3NT do not appeal to me.” He bids 4♦ now to show a good 4♥ bid. “4♣ puts too much focus on the club suit, and 4♥ isn’t enough. 4♦ tells partner I have a maximum with two or three hearts and (probably) short diamonds, and I can live with that.”
Sanborn calls 2♠ the better of poor options. “At least spades could be a playable strain, while diamonds … ? Probably not. Over 3♥, I bid 4♦ . My hand has grown in value facing the six- or good five-card heart suit. But I don’t have enough to take over. All I can suggest is a fit and slam interest.”
Meckstroth is lukewarm on 2♠ (“could also bid 3NT over 1♥ showing a big hand with good clubs”) and moves forward with 4♦ – cuebid for hearts.
Meyers is in the same camp. “I don’t mind 2♠,” she says, “but I might bid 3NT – I am 50/50 on those two bids.” Nor does she love her next call – 4♦ : “What if partner has ♥K Q J x x x and another card? Slam is not out of the picture. I have too many controls not to make a try.”
The Sutherlins hate 2♠. “A jump shift in a three-card major is dangerous. If partner has four-card spade support, he will raise and raise and raise.” Over partner’s 3♥, they bid 4♦ . “We have too much to raise to 4♥ and we need to send a message. Partner will read this as intended: Too late to propose that diamonds are trump.”
Korbel doesn’t particularly like 2♠. “It seems much better either to open 2♣ or to jump to 3NT after opening 1♣.” He bids 4♦ now. “Having successfully gotten away with the 2♠ call, I must make the bid that agrees hearts as trumps and allows partner the most encouragement.”
Colchamiro dislikes 2♠, too, preferring 3NT. “I hate jump shifting into an unreal major, especially spades. And besides, 3NT more or less describes my hand – long, strong clubs and a good hand suitable for notrump.” He, too, suggests 4♦ . “Assuming partner has six hearts, I have a great hand. Partner should expect shortness here, given the auction. It’s safer than blasting 4NT.”
Hampson, who likes 2♠, now bids 4♥. “I don’t think I’m strong enough for a 4♦ slam try in hearts.”
Lawrence offers a “qualified maybe” on the 2♠ call. “The auction would have been easier if I reversed with 2♦ instead. I hate the position I am in now. Because I have to bid something, I choose 4♥. No pride in this.”
Stack says he can live with the jump shift into a three-card suit. “I have to agree, but not because I like the bid. Seemingly the only alternative bid that is forcing is 2♦ , and reversing into a one-card suit with 7–1 has no appeal at all!” He bids 4♥. “I would like to bid 4♣ as a raise to 4♥, but I don’t think 4♣ is even forcing.”
Rigal, who is kind of OK with 2♠ (“an impossible call in standard methods”) bids 4♥. “With the ♦ K an incalculable value, simply raising what rates to be a six-carder puts the ball in partner’s court. Let’s hope he returns it in an appropriate fashion.”
Having painted himself into a corner where he dare not bid 3NT, Falk’s next call is 4♥. “I propose the Coroner’s Rule: ‘Supporting partner when it is at all reasonable to do so won’t get you savaged in the postmortem.’”
After a lukewarm endorsement of 2♠, Cohen offers 4♣. “If partner bids hearts a third time, I’ll yield. Even if I survive the first round of diamonds in 3NT, I’d be better off in 5♣ (at IMPs) opposite, say,
♠K x ♥K Q x x x ♦ 10 x x x ♣x x.
Bidding 2♠ didn’t show clubs, so I think I owe partner a rebid.”
Boehm would have preferred 2♦ to 2♠. “I can more readily correct diamonds to notrump than fight off spade raises. 2♦ also saves bidding space, which I’m apt to need with this hard-to-describe hand.” He follows up with 4♣, “trying to come clean” after the 2♠ call he didn’t like.
4♣ by Kennedy, who had no problem with 2♠. “I don’t want to conceal a good seven-card suit.”
