| 1♠ | 1NT | |||
| 2♣ | 2♦ | 2♥ | 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 | Double |
What’s your call?
Discussion
For yesterday’s It’s Your Call deal (from Jan. 2009’s Bridge Bulletin), 2♥ was named top bid.
You can bid 2♥, 3♥ or 4♥ on this hand. In fact, some bid diamonds. Because the hand doesn’t fit anything precisely, the panelists had to decide which bid is best.
Eight of the experts make a simple 2♥ raise.
“If I limit my hand now with 2♥, I can feel free to bid ’em up later,” said Kerri Sanborn.
Grant Baze agreed with 2♥. “I may never get to bid diamonds,” he said.
“2♥ might be underselling ourselves,” said Barry Rigal, “but it is what I’m worth. If the opponents chime in, I get to paint pretty pictures of what I actually have.”
“2♥,” echoed Betty Ann Kennedy. “If partner bids again or passes, either way I’ll be happy.”
“2♥,” said Larry Cohen. “A strange call and I am probably in the minority. Anything could be right. I’m not thrilled with my answers this month.”
“I don’t have enough to bid 3♥,” said Jill Meyers. “I hope they compete so I can bid again.”
“My hand is huge for diamonds,” said Jeff Meckstroth, “but I have to show the fit for partner’s major by bidding 2♥.”
Four experts bid 3♥, a limit raise.
“3♥ is not very appealing,” said August Boehm, “but 2♥ is too little and 2♦ is too much.”
“3♥,” agreed Mike Lawrence. “It’s against my principles, but my principles include a forcing 1NT bid.”
“I strongly believe in making a three-card limit raise,” said Steve Robinson. “If it goes 1♥ – 3♥ – 4♥, that auction is much harder to defend against because the opponents know nothing about opener’s hand.”
“3♥,” said Janet and Mel Colchamiro. “We’ll take the middle ground with a limit raise.”
Peggy and John Sutherlin were the only panelists who bid 4♥. “We want to reach game without overstating our values,” they said. “This bid does the job. Dummy will be a surprise, but should be adequate.”
Three experts bid 2♦.
“I am willing to force to game,” said Richard Freeman. “Any other approach makes it impossible to describe this hand.”
Karen Walker agreed. “This hand is a bit heavy for a 2♥ raise,” she said, “but okay for a standard 2/1 response. Because 1NT isn’t forcing, I assume we can’t be playing 2♦ as a game force.”
“If 1NT is not forcing, then 2♦ is not game forcing,” agreed Allan Falk. “After bidding 2♦, I can raise hearts as an invitation. If partner has certain hands, we could easily have a diamond slam.”
Even though 1NT is not forcing, Kitty and Steve Cooper chose that action. “Partner rates to be unbalanced and thus is likely to bid again,” they said. “Then we can bid 3♥. An immediate 3♥ bid with three low ones is unappealing.”
Scorers Kay and Randy Joyce summarized the 2*H* action that nearly half the panel chose: “This is not a good hand to play 1NT as non-forcing,” they said. “Because we are non-vulnerable, we’ll go low by bidding 2♥, but step on the gas if there is further bidding.”
Want to receive the retro “It’s Your Call” by email?
Click here to subscribe.
For archived versions of this feature, click here.
