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 |
Most of the panel goes for 2NT with this misfitting collection of scattered values. Is 2NT meant to be an invitation or a retreat? In theory, it’s invitational.
Falk’s 2NT is a rapid retreat. “Blecchh! If my clubs looked more like my diamonds, I’d try 3♣. Playing notrump with 5–6 hands is not usually a good idea. But my clubs are terrible, and a 6–0 or 6–1 fit with this moth-eaten suit is a terrible idea. I can hardly pass or take a preference to 2♠, so the only thing left is 2NT. And hope that partner does not bid 3♥ or 3NT.”
Meyers: “The choices are 2♠ or 2NT. 2NT seems like the better option.”
Colchamiro’s assessment: “2NT shows my values. Sort of. And the alternatives are so ugly. I guess we could belong in clubs or diamonds, but how can I tell which?”
Lee explains his 2NT: “I actually think notrump might play quite badly with a hand like this. But it’s also the kind of hand where notrump is going to be very tricky to defend well, and there’s no safety in 3♣ anyway.”
Boehm is a little more optimistic. “I hope North can bid a minor while describing a 5–4–3–1 hand. If we finish in 3NT, we may make it on power.”
Robinson: “What else could you bid? Neither of my suits are good enough to bid.”
Cohen, too. “No reason to believe any suit contract will do better than notrump. This ‘correction’ should be made only with decent values, which I have.”
Stack, 2NT: “At least we have the values for this bid. The distribution will probably make transportation a nightmare, but the alternatives appear to be much worse. Bidding 2♠ with a singleton does not appeal. Bidding 3♣ has appeal, but doesn’t show these values, and 3♦ might be a better place to play than clubs.”
2NT by Rigal, who consults his crystal ball. “What normally happens now is that partner bids 3♥ to show 5–5 and we get one level higher. But maybe he is 5–4–3–1 and he will bid out his shape? I admire anyone stoic enough to bid 2♠, but that isn’t me.”
Meckstroth is wary. “3♣. Notrump does not rate to play well at all.”
Hampson also takes a dim view. “I don’t expect to make many notrump or anything in a major. We’ll see if partner has enough to bid again, otherwise I get to play my longest suit.”
Weinstein, 3♣: “I want to discourage partner from bidding majors. I am going low because of the misfit and looking for the most likely plus score.”
Sanborn, 3♣: “What else? I don’t relish 2NT with such a potential misfit. Maybe I should have started with an invitational sequence in clubs.”
Lawrence doesn’t even mention 2NT as a possibility. “3♣. I’m guessing this will be better than 2♠. If I bid 2♠, partner might continue in spades. And if I pass 2♥, we might be in a 4–1 fit. 3♣ rates to be a sane contract, and partner will have been warned that his suits don’t interest me. Who knows? Once in a while, partner will bid 3♦ or even raise clubs.”
3♣ by the Sutherlins. “Our hand will be a poor dummy for partner. Should we pass before the doubling starts? Correct to 2♠ in case partner is 6–4? Try for game with 2NT, which will be an underdog because of all the transportation problems? No to all of those possibilities. We go low with 3♣ and hope to go plus.”
