Matchpoints. N-S vulnerable.
♠4 ♥Q 6 5 ♦K Q J 9 4 ♣Q 5 4 2
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | |||
| Pass | 1♠ | Dbl | ? |
What’s your call?
| 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 |
| Redbl | Pass |
Scorer Falk summarizes the dilemma: “A slight plurality of the panel sees 10 high-card points and redoubles. What they’ll do after, say, 2♥–Pass–Pass is wish they’d done something else, because they’ve promised another bid. They can guess to pass, one supposes, but then they’d have to find a new partner for the next hand. They can guess to double, and after partner remonstrates about opening in third seat, they’d have to find a new partner. Or they can guess to double slowly and, after things go awry before the committee, they can find a new partner.”
Cohen doesn’t seem all that concerned about finding a new partner. “Redouble. Since I am a passed hand, this narrows my point range nicely.”
The Gordons place the blue card on the table, as well, but not without some trepidation. “Yes, pass is tempting, as is 1NT, but we do have a pretty good hand. The only problem is when left-hand opponent’s 2♥ is passed around to us. Should that happen, we will try 3♦ and hope for the best.”
Rigal agrees with the redouble, but plans to pass should 2♥ come back around to him.
Meckstroth: “Redouble. Perhaps I should bid diamonds, but if they don’t have a heart fit, we have a great chance at a penalty here.”
Sutherlins: “Redouble. Too much to bid a non-forcing 2♦, wrong distribution to bid 1NT. That leaves only redouble.”
Meyers opts for 1NT, explaining her reluctance to redouble: “This is not the kind of hand I would want to redouble and penalize unless they bid diamonds. I would not redouble here unless I were able to double two suits.”
Walker agrees. “This technically (and barely) qualifies for a redouble, but 1NT seems a better description of these soft values, especially opposite a third-seat opener.”
Kennedy: “1NT. A redouble would promise another bid by me unless partner rebids 2♠. 2♦ suggests a sinsingle-suited hand. 1NT implies support for the unbid suits and 7–10 HCP.”
Lawrence: “1NT. Alternative is 2♦, not forcing. This hand is too good for 2♦ in high cards, and the values are too soft in general for play in diamonds. Redouble is off since I have all boring values with little defense.”
Falk: “1NT. With no real defense, redouble is silly — it commits me to another bid opposite a third-seat opener, and if partner doubles their continuation, I’ll be worried they can make whatever it is.”
The Coopers opt for 2♦. “We play this forcing one round. The problem with redoubling is what to do when it goes 2♥ back to you … better to bid our suit.”
Boehm, the lone passer, says, “My goal is to double their runout but, unlike redouble, limit my hand, making the penalty double somewhat cooperative. If our partnership can’t make a penalty double of a partial, I’d vote for 1NT.”
Want to receive the retro “It’s Your Call” by email?
Click here to subscribe.