What’s your call?
| 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT | ||
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass |
4♦ by partner?
Stack bids 4♥ and says, “There should be no doubt that partner is showing hearts with the 4♦ cuebid. The question should be, do we want to make a slam try by bidding something other than 4♥? The hand has no aces, so let’s keep it at the four level.”
Lee is a 4♥ bidder. “My rule is that if I’m not sure whether to make a slam move, I count my key cards. And if that number is zero, I go low.”
Cohen, 4♥: “ Even opposite the ♠A, ♥A K and the ♣A, I still need partner to have a diamond control – maybe he thinks 4♦ shows one – for slam. And even then, I have to worry about 4–1 trumps if we’re missing the jack. In other words, we are missing five key cards, and even if partner has four of them, there are still concerns.”
Hampson: “If partner has magic, we make slam. If not, then 5♥ is in jeopardy. I choose to try for a plus.”
4♥ by Rigal. “Yes, I have great clubs, but 4♥ here just announces ownership. I will maybe compete to 5♥ over 5♦ depending on how the bidding goes.”
Robinson cuebids 4♠. “I assume that 4♦ shows a good 4♥ bid. Partner could easily have:
♠x x x ♥A K x x ♦ A ♣A Q x x x.”
Lawrence, 4♠: “I hope partner can bid 4NT.”
The Sutherlins bid 4♠, also “hoping to hear 4NT – Roman Key Card Blackwood – from partner. Hard to imagine he doesn’t have at least three of the five key cards. A key-card inquiry should be safe at this level.”
Colchamiro explains the allure of 5♣. “It’s hard to imagine partner holding more than one diamond unless he has a high-card moose, say:
♠A x x ♥A K x x ♦ J x ♣A Q x x,
and with that, he’ll back off with 5♥ and we’ll be OK. But because East– West are vulnerable, it’s more likely partner has only one diamond and therefore:
♠A x x ♥A K x x ♦ x ♣A x x x x.
It’s true partner could have weaker hearts, and that would be unfortunate. But with weak hearts and no firstround diamond control, will he bid 6♥ over 5♣? No. The only way he’ll bid 6♥ is if he has great trumps – ♥A K – and aces, just what I need for an almost laydown 6♥.”
Boehm bids 5♣. “There is some ambiguity about whether 5♣ shows support or a control. It is, however, an unambiguous slam try, begging for a diamond control.”
Falk, 5♣: “I don’t think partner should have four hearts. 4♥ by him would show a good hand. If he has a better than good hand for hearts, my hand will not be a disappointment in 5♥ or a slam. Meanwhile, if partner merely has three very good hearts and a great hand, 5♣ or 6♣ must be playable. Just in case partner has♦ K x among his goodies, he’s better placed as declarer with the lead at trick one coming up to his hand. I’m tempted to cuebid 4♠, but partner does not yet know I have huge club support, and spades is a suit in which he could (indeed, almost certainly does) hold four, making it conceivable that he would pass or raise spades.”
Spirits high, Meyers and Sanborn are taking a 6♣ fling.
Meyers: “Bidding what I think I can make.”
Sanborn: “Partner has a really good hand. There is no reason to play in a major. Where are my losers facing a game force?”
Ah, Daniel, Daniel, Daniel … “4NT. It’s revolting to use Blackwood without any key cards, but what can partner have except key cards? Because I have the ♥Q, he cannot respond 5♠, and if he shows three key cards, I can sign off in 5♥ (or pass 5♣ if playing 3014) and hope for the best. If we get to 5♥ down on a ruff, that’s too bad, because my second choice was a 4♠ cuebid.”
