It’s Your Call
IMPs. N-S Vulnerable.
♠A J 8 4 2 ♥K ♦Q 6 5 2 ♣K 10 7
| West | North | East | South |
| 1♥ | Dbl | Redbl | |
| 3♦ | 3♥ | Pass | ? |
Two Part Question
Do You Agree with redouble?
| Yes | No |
| 3♠ | 3NT | |||
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Dbl | Pass |
The panel was almost split on whether to redouble with this hand — a call that sets the stage for defending, God and partner willing. Reverse the vulnerability or make it red all, and redouble would be a standout. But even at favorable vulnerability, some panelists envision penalties that outweigh what could turn out to be an iffy vulnerable game. Part one: Do you agree with the redouble?
Walker found the “yes” majority surprising given the modern tendency to make natural bids (especially in a long major) rather than redouble.
Falk is a yes, “but not crazy about it.”
Stack supports redoubling, calling it a “very flexible bid showing 10 plus points and the ability to punish the opponents in whatever they bid.”
For the Sutherlins, the alternative of bidding 1♠ “is less appealing since East has suggested he has spades.”
Robinson redoubles “because I would like to double them.”
Sanborn is downright bloodthirsty. “This looks like a hand where the opponents could be slaughtered with no fit. At the same time, we might not have the tricks for game.”
The consensus among the “no” voters was that defending low-level partscores white versus red was unlikely to produce the best result.
Kennedy prefers to bid the five-card spade suit, as does Boehm, “even though two experts did redouble in the recent Vanderbilt final.”
Weinstein calls the decision to redouble a close one, but bids 1♠ instead. “I think Lew Stansby and Joe Grue redoubled at the table so it has to be reasonable.”
Two nay-sayers felt very strongly. Does he agree with South’s redouble? Colchamiro says, “Nooooooooo.”
“I hate redouble,” says Lawrence.
All but one of the real-life panelists raise partner to 4♥. Weinstein describes the stiff ♥K as a great holding on this auction. “I am not even sure 3♠ is natural and not a cuebid or try for 3NT. Partner made a free 3♥ bid so I don’t see any reason to muddy the water when 4♥ is so likely the right contract.”
Boehm calls his 4♥ raise just a guess, “because we can no longer sensibly explore both spades and notrump. This is what indicts the redouble — which waves a red flag at the favorably vulnerable opponents.”
There is some disagreement as to whether partner’s bidding shows a hand with extras or a hand on the weaker side. The Gordons believe that partner has shown extras, prompting a raise to 4♥. “Here, partner bid freely in a non-forcing auction, so he should have something extra.”
Meyers, on the other hand, sees partner with “long hearts, not a great hand and not interested in penalizing.”
“I have almost nothing wasted,” says Falk. “Partner is a huge favorite to have a diamond void. But 3♥ is a weaker call than pass. So I’m content with game. If I thought North could have a decent hand, I’d try 4♦.”
Cohen isn’t ready to give up on slam. The lone 4♦ bidder says, “I want to do more than just raise to 4♥. My hand is much better than it could have been. Partner is likely void in diamonds, so I have all great cards for him (other than the ♦Q).”
