What’s your call?
| 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 | Dbl |
Lawrence. “2NT. Dangerous. But safe in that if partner has the right 2-point hand, he will bid something, like 3♣. Defending 2♠ rates to be a bad idea.”
Rigal: “Again, pass, double and bidding – either 2NT or 3♣ – make sense. Pass feels wrong. 18 high-card points is 18 HCP. Double feels too risky and 3♣ doesn’t really describe what I have at all. I am going with 2NT and hope it is a good save if I cannot go plus there.”
2NT by Lee. “I have a source of tricks. This could even be a good save against 2♠, so I think there’s enough upside.”
Colchamiro bids 2NT because he thinks that’s what’s going to bid at the other table. “Hope partner doesn’t think this shows clubs and diamonds – but he well might.”
Hampson passes. “Minus 200 looms large here if partner can’t take action, so I will avoid a large minus and try for a plus on defense.”
Falk: “Pass in tempo. If 2NT were natural, I might consider it, but 2NT tells partner I’m 4–6 in the minors (or at least 5–4 in clubs and a red suit, though if I were 5–4 in clubs and hearts, I’d probably double rather than bid 2NT). So, because no bid describes this hand, I pass and hope to go plus.”
Boehm: “Pass. Maybe 2NT or double at matchpoints – either could be very right or very wrong. At BAM, I try to avoid extremes.”
Meyers passes, “although I think 3♣ is totally reasonable.”
Cohen is one of a quartet of doublers. “I would love it if 2NT were natural, but most experts would take it as six clubs and four of a red suit. I don’t want to sell to 2♠, so I hope to push them to 3♠ or survive partner’s takeout. If partner bids 3♦ , he will have at least five diamonds – otherwise, he has a scrambling 2NT available.”
The Sutherlins double. “Our opponents may be stealing, so we need to compete for the partial.”
Double by Robinson: “It doesn’t pay to sell out to the opponents when they have an eight-card spade fit in any form of scoring.”
Sanborn, too: “There is a good chance of shoving them to the three level, and less of a chance that we can make something.”
The two 3♣ bidders step forward.
Korbel: “Maybe we’ll get a good dummy and make it. Maybe it will be down one against 2♠ making. Maybe we can push them to 3♠. The point is, a lot of good things can happen, and the only bad thing is if they manage to get 3♣ for plus 200 one way or another. This is the kind of gamble you might take at board-a-match that wouldn’t be a sensible risk/reward at IMPs.”
Stack: “Because partner should have, at most, two spades, we are bidding in the hope that we can catch a decent dummy and push them to the three level. The opponents can probably make a couple of spades and who knows? We may be on for 3♣. The club suit is so good that it is going to be difficult to double if indeed we are out of line.”
