| 3♠ | 3NT | |||
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| Pass | Double |
What’s your call?
Discussion
For yesterday’s It’s Your Call deal (from Dec. 2008’s Bridge Bulletin), 4♣ was named top bid.
The majority of the panel made a straight-forward 4*C* bid.
“4♣ ,” said Janet and Mel Colchamiro. “This one strikes us as easy. You have too few hearts and too many clubs to double, and we don’t like pass.”
“4♣ ,” agreed Kerri Sanborn. “I can’t see selling out, and double is too risky with only one heart and four-card support for clubs.”
“I don’t have enough to force to game,” said Jill Meyers. “When I bid 4*C*, partner should play me for five or six diamonds and four clubs.”
“We need to show our club support because partner may have extras,” said Peggy and John Sutherlin. “An action double would probably show one more spade and one less club.”
Most of the panel felt it is unlikely that North has extra values. He had a chance to double 3♥ or bid 3♠ or 4♣.
Steve Robinson bid 4♣, but disagreed with the previous 2♦ bid. “I would have bid 2♥ over 1♥ to show my club support right away,” he said. “Set trumps ASAP is my motto.”
Mike Lawrence agreed with Robinson. “If you do not deem this strong enough to bid 4♣, then why did you bid 2♦ instead of raising clubs on the previous round?” he asked. “South has endplayed himself.”
Could bidding 4♣ land us in a seven-card fit?
“There is no danger of arriving in a seven-card fit,” answered Larry Cohen. “Assuming partner has at most three hearts, we have to have an eight-card fit in one of the minors. I would make a value-showing double if I had one more heart.”
“Presuming that partner has no more than three hearts, we will find at least four clubs or three-card diamond support in partner’s hand,” agreed Sanborn.
Three panelists doubled.
“Double,” said Barry Rigal. “What am I supposed to do? Yes, bidding 4♣ might work better, but who says partner has clubs on this auction?”
“Double,” echoed Richard Freeman. “Spades may provide a landing place or partner may be able to pass for penalties.”
Two experts bid 3♠.
“Double is fine only if specifically defined as takeout,” said August Boehm. “Lacking a firm agreement, I’ll improvise with 3♠, keeping 3NT in view. If partner raises to 4♠, I’ll retreat to 5♣.”
“3♠,” agreed Allan Falk. “If North raises, I’ll pass and take my chances in a 4–3 fit. Bidding 3♠ gives us a chance to get to 3NT.”
Three experts passed.
“I can’t imagine making game on this deal,” said Karen Walker. “Partner could have shown something extra by doubling 3♥. It appears we’ve been outbid, so I’ll go quietly and hope for plus 50.”
“We have bid our hand, so defending seems best,” said Kitty and Steve Cooper. “The four level is pretty high and bidding will likely get us a minus score.”
Falk explains his scoring: “Of 17 panelists, 14 vote for action, so the pass has been demoted,” he said. I have promoted 5♣, which no panelists bid, because it could be the winning bid a fair percentage of the time.”
Want to receive the retro “It’s Your Call” by email?
Click here to subscribe.
For archived versions of this feature, click here.
