August 2019 - 43

1♥ should be a 1♠ bid with only four
spades, and 1♠ here shows five. But
not playing that way, my hand is terrific
in context. I have an extra spade, a stiff
heart and the glorious ♦10. Partner's
double of 2♥ shows extras without
four spades. He didn't bid notrump, so I
would place him with something like:
♠A K x ♥A x x x ♦K Q x x ♣x x,
and that would be about the minimum
I would expect. So it's 3♠ for me. If 1♠
would have shown five, I would have an
easy 3♦ here. As it is, 3♦ here would
deny five cards in spades and show
equal length or longer diamonds."
Meckstroth says, "3♠ seems very
descriptive to me."
Rigal bids 3♠. "Partner's double
shows extras and I have the magic fifth
spade and extras myself. That almost
adds up to game, doesn't it?"
A cuebid can't be too dangerous, having already limited the hand with 1♠.
3♥ by Sanborn. "If I catch secondary
spade support, I will bid 4♠. Remains
to be seen if partner bids 3NT, but he
should have a good picture of my short
hearts, so I will likely pass that. My
first thought was 3♠, but that sounds
like a better suit, chunkier or six cards
long."
3♥ by Cohen. "Partner's double, in
my book (literally and figuratively) is
not for penalty because it is on the two
level in a suit the opponents bid and
raised. I'm driving to game, but if partner insists on 3NT, I will give in."
Donn bids 3♥. "Too good for 2♠ or
3♦, which are both weak hands, but
not good enough spades for 3♠. Whatever partner is doing, I'm interested."
Lee commits to 4♠. "3♥ is more of
a stopper ask than checkback and 4♠
rates to be better anyway, because partner hasn't been able to bid notrump at
his first two opportunities."
Meyers introduces her second suit.
"3♦. Partner's bid shows three spades
and extras. My 3♦ bid shows some
values and at least four diamonds. If I
didn't have values, I would rebid 2♠.
My strong second choice is 3♠, but my
suit is bad and I am going to be taking

piggish for my taste. We
an early tap."
also might be able to stop
Robinson rebids 2♠.
in 3♥ if partner responds
"I'll show my fifth spade.
3♦."
I don't think partner's
Lee doubles. "It looks a
double is a stand-on-thelittle strange, but getting
table double."
the majors in is too imporExtra credit question: Is
tant."
3♦ forcing? Meyers - who
Meckstroth agrees.
was the only panelist who
"Double.
Far from perfect,
bid 3♦ - didn't come right
but
need
to focus on both
out and say yay or nay, but
majors.
A
good partner
she made it clear the call
will
jump
to 4♠!"
showed extra values. This
Steve Robinson
Double by Shi. "Almost
very auction, as fate would
certainly
partner
will bid 3♦, but then
have it, was posted on bridgewinners.
I
will
correct
to
3♥.
If partner bids a
com on June 15 by Adam Parrish.
major,
we're
in
the
game."
While one of our panelists - Weinstein
Weinstein, double: "I'm not under
- expressed no doubt that 3♦ is 100%
oath,
so I don't have to say what I'm doforcing, an overwhelming 98% of the
ing
after
partner's 3♦."
pollees believe that it is not forcing.
Rigal
doubles,
"planning to overbid
Panelists who weighed in on the nonby converting 3♦ to 3♥. In a perfect
forcing side include Donn and Rigal
world, we find our major fit and live
and scorer Walker. Do you and your
happily ever after. 'Fairy tales can
partner have an agreement?
come true, it can happen to you ...'"
Cohen: "3NT. Please don't show this
5. IMPs. None vulnerable.
to my students. Well, because you have
♠Q J 10 3 ♥A Q J 8 7 ♦8 ♣K Q 10 to, explain it this way: Closing your
West North
East
South
eyes and bidding 3NT whenever it is at
3♣
Pass
Pass
?
all possible seems to work quite well."
Colchamiro bids 3NT. "Club ruffs
Call
Votes
Award
loom in 4♥ or 4♠. Pass could be the
Dbl
10
100
winner, of course, but if partner has as
3NT
5
80
little as:
3♥
0
60
♠K x x ♥10 x x ♦A x x x x ♣x x,
4♣
0
40
we've got a reasonable shot at plus 400
Pass
0
30
instead of a likely plus 50, plus 100 or
even minus 110 vs. 3♣."
Get in the game
Boehm's call is 3NT. "Ugly, but a
Sanborn doubles, planning to conmajor suit runs the risk of a club ruff. If
vert 3♦ to 3NT. "I'm only doubling to
I double and correct 3♦ to 3♥, 3NT is
find partner's four-card major."
nowhere in view, and 4♦ from partner
Ditto Robinson: "Double. This hand
could easily belong in a major. I will bid would be most unwelcome."
3NT by Grossack - "but not a happy
3NT over 3♦."
3NT,"
he hastens to add. "I could bid
Lawrence also doubles, but with a
3♥ or even double, but that would
slightly different plan. "I'm willing to
be in violation of Hamman's Rule ...
bid 3♥ after 3♦ from partner. I will
maybe."
raise 3♥ or 3♠ to game."
Donn makes it sound so easy. "3NT.
A sigh from Meyers (insufficient),
Standard."
then double. "I correct 3♦ to 3♥. I
want to get both of my majors in there,
so I don't want to unilaterally bid 3♥."
See pg. 75 for the top
Korbel doubles. "3NT is a little too
IYC online scorers for June
August 2019 Bridge Bulletin

43
August 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2019
