IMPs. None vulnerable.
♠K Q 4 ♥A J 2 ♦A J 10 3 ♣Q 7 3
| West | North | East | South |
| 3♠ | Dbl | Pass | ? |
What’s your call?
| 3NT | ||||
| 4♣ | 4♦ | 4♥ | 4♠ | 4NT |
| 5♣ | 5♦ | 5♥ | 5♠ | 5NT |
| 6♣ | 6♦ | 6♥ | 6♠ | 6NT |
| 7♣ | 7♦ | 7♥ | 7♠ | 7NT |
| ReDbl | Pass |
Mercifully, this hand completes the trifecta of auctions involving unusual (meaning unusual, not two lower unbid) 4NT and 5NT bids over a preempting opponent. Mercifully, too, these types of hands are much rarer at the table than they are in bidding quizzes.
3NT got six votes from panelists afraid an imaginary safety net would be pulled out from under them if they dared go any higher.
Colchamiro calls 3NT “another application of Hamman’s Rule: going past 3NT punishes partner.”
Meckstroth states simply, “Don’t have any safety any higher.”
Walker calls anything past 3NT “a gamble that partner has extra values. The more I have, the less likely that is, so call me chicken but put my score in the plus column.” Agreeing that 4NT in this sequence is quantitative would be useful, she says, “but I think it has to be Blackwood.”
Rigal, surprisingly, bids 3NT. “Wimp of the century! But having missed slam on the previous deal, I don’t want to make the reflex overbid to get it back. I can’t see how to consult partner here, so I won’t. I’ll go low and claim to have lost an ace in the glare from the vugraph cameras.”
“Go plus against preempts,” Robinson says. Again. “If partner has a singleton or void in spades, he might be light in high-card points. On bad days, we might not even make 3NT.”
All the 4NT bidders intend for their call to be natural, invitational and quantitative.
“Shows about an extra ace,” say the Sutherlins. “If partner also has an extra ace or a good source of tricks, he can accept slam, which will almost certainly have play.”
Weinstein says the same thing: “I have way too much to bid 3NT and not quite enough to force to slam.”
Then there are the cuebidders. Falk calls this a “what sort of a maniac is my partner of the moment” hand. He says, “If North would double with:
♠– ♥Kxxx ♦KQxx ♣AJ10xx,
as many would, six of a minor might be playable, but 6NT is not safe. If partner has a singleton spade, his hand will no doubt be a bit stronger.” Consider the hand above with one spade and one less club. “Probably most could not bring themselves to pass with that hand (‘shortness acts’).”
Falk continues, “I think this hand calls for a ‘two-step’: I’ll start with 4♠ and correct 5♣ to 5♦, 5♦ to 6♦ and raise 5♥. If it goes 4♠–5♣–5♦–5♥, I’ll try 5NT, showing about this much, and leave any further move to partner.”
Kennedy makes the cuebid “to set up a game force and go from there. Seven is not out of the picture. 6NT is going to be my next call.”
Meyers bids 4♠, but only because she fears that 4NT might not be interpreted as quantitative.
Lawrence tries 5NT. “If I can find a diamond contract, the spade honors may gain nothing. Having them does one good thing. They tell me that partner will have all of his high cards in the other three suits. I am willing to bid a slam but not in notrump until other avenues have been considered. If partner bids 6♣, I will bid 6♦. If he bids 6♦, I pass. If he bids 6♥, I will bid 6NT since I now have an inference that he has two spades. There might be a spade and a ruff against a suit.”
Sanborn comes to the same conclusions. “I rather like 5NT (pick a slam), with the intention of correcting 6♣ to 6♦ and then 6♥ to 6NT. Partner could have a void in spades, in which case a suit contract is probably best. On the other hand, there could be a ruff lurking.”
Two players leap to 6NT without a second thought. One is Boehm. The other is Cohen, who says, “It really just jumps out at me, though I’d like to have just a little bit more.”
The Coopers pass. “This should get us at least 500, and slam is iffy because our spade cards are not working on offense.”