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 | Dbl |
Pavlicek leads off the 3♠ bidders: “Partner might have four spades, so I won’t ignore that strain. Failing a raise, I’ll take my chances in 4♥, which may survive even opposite a stiff – or at least that’s my story until the firstround finesse loses to the 10.”
3♠ by Cohen. “We could easily belong in spades. Picture partner with 4=1=5=3 distribution. I’m not doubling, because it rates to get left in. Not 4♣, either – it doesn’t necessarily promise spade playability.”
Korbel, 3♠. “I really don’t like doubling (which just shows cards, by the way) with a club void and minimal defense. I will not sit for 3NT, but will pull to 4♦, giving partner a chance to correct to 4♥ with a doubleton.”
Rigal’s 3♠: “I cannot double with a void, and I’m hoping partner can come back with 4♣ as a choice of games. If partner bids 4♦, I might just pass, I suppose.”
Boehm bids 3♠, “trying for game somewhere. If double can mean this hand, pity poor partner! – because then double can mean anything.”
Ditto Falk: “Unless partner has a club stack, I’m willing to play 4♠, 4♥ or 4♦. Also, 3NT should have play if partner bids that next. I don’t want to bid only 3♥ and miss a 4–4 spade fit. Nor do I want to play hearts opposite a low singleton when partner has decent diamonds, but 3♦ by me also loses the spade suit and ends the auction 90 percent of the time. That would be an awfully pessimistic view of this hand and take partner out of the bidding completely.”
There’s always a cuebidder or, in this case, four of them.
Lawrence riffles through the bidding box before arriving at 4♣. “I’m assuming a double from partner would have been for penalty. I suspect he has some clubs but also a minimum opener. My choices are extensive:
Double – Not ready to experiment
here. Only if double was defined as
takeout and I knew we were on the
same page would I try that. Even Sanborn: “4♣. This just isn’t right for a reopening double: too much offense and too little defense. Hopefully I’ll get the picture across of good hand with more than one place to play.”
4♣ by Meyers “caters to the three remaining suits (including partner’s).”
Colchamiro bids 4♣. “Double may be fashionable, but I don’t like it with a void. Puts too much pressure on partner.”
Three votes for 3♥:
Benedict: “Because partner could have a singleton honor or a worthless doubleton, you need to rebid a strong six-card major. Rebidding this suit at the three level vulnerable is encouraging but not forcing.”
Stack: “If this were IMPs, we would certainly make the more aggressive bid of 4♣ to force to game. But at matchpoints, the middle road seems appropriate. Bidding 3♥ doesn’t mean we won’t get to game.”
Robinson: “3♥. I can’t pass with a void in the opponents’ suit, and 3♥ figures to be as good as any strain.”
In there with the fashionable double are Hampson and Lee.
Hampson: “Double keeps the most options in play, and partner shouldn’t leave it in without very strong clubs.”
Lee: “It might be bad if partner passes, but I want to keep every strain in play.”
Meckstroth reaches for 4♥. “I don’t want to reopen with a double with a void in clubs.”
