September 2020 - 39

that couldn't open the bidding along
with his negative double shape. I don't
have any assurances here. If he bids
5♣, I will bid 5♦, which shows this
shape. Now partner gets to guess. He
knows from my pass of 4♠ that I can't
have a good hand. Passing it out in 4♠
doubled is an option."
Grossack bids 4NT. "It's not that I
expect to make anything on the five
level, but first, it is possible, and second, I don't really have any reason to
believe I'm setting 4♠. Partner's second
double here is not penalty, per se, but
rather card-showing - something like a
maximum passed hand with four hearts.
And as it is IMPs, it's best to try to find
our best fit on the five level so we don't
lose control of the hand. Here, I will
offer 5♦ over a 5♣ response to show a
choice between diamonds and hearts."
Rigal: Routine 4NT, two-suited, correct 5♣ to 5♦ to show precisely this
hand ... "Give or take."
Ditto Meyers: "4NT, and I would correct 5♣ to 5♦ to show the red suits."
4NT by Robinson. "Partner's double
just shows extra values. I assume
partner will bid 5♣, and I will then bid
5♦, and partner will choose between
hearts and diamonds, knowing my diamonds are stronger. This is a bidder's
game and when in doubt, bid."
Lee offers the red suits with 4NT.
"Maybe we make, maybe it's a good
save. I think passing is just a little too
big of a position to take."
Meckstroth passes. Unhappily. "Not
thrilled with this, but hope to go plus."
Boehm makes a command decision.
"5♥. This might be a double game
swing (gain 13 IMPs) or a phantom
sacrifice (lose 5-9). Much depends on
the degree of diamond fit and the location of honors. A tougher decision at
matchpoints, where the idea is to be on
the winning side of frequency."
5. IMPs. North-South vulnerable.
♠9 8 4 ♥A K 7 ♦K ♣K 10 8 5 3 2
West

North

1♠
4♠

2♥
Pass

East
Pass
2♠
Pass

South
1♣
3♥
?

Call
Pass
Dbl
4NT
5♣
5♥

Votes
5
3
2
2
1

Award
100
80
70
70
70

Say no to bullies
Pass, says Rigal. "I was not invited to
this party, was I? I made a non-forcing
call and the opponents bid game. Partner didn't double, so why should it go
down?"
Meyers, too: "My partner's bid is not
game forcing, nor is my 3♥ bid. If my
partner wanted to bid over 4♠, she
should have."
Meckstroth passes, but would have
bid differently to stay out of this position. "Why didn't we bid 4♥ over 2♠?
This pass isn't forcing. I can't double
with nothing in spades."
Korbel passes based on his previous
choices, but they're not the choices he
would have made at the table. "I judged
this hand to be worth only a raise to
3♥; I actually would have raised to
4♥. I have no particular reason to
overrule myself now. Partner didn't
act, so he is minimum."
Boehm passes. "Not heroic, but why
bid or double with basically nothing
extra."
No! Cohen can't let go. "Double. Minus 590 on paper doesn't hurt as much
as in real life."
Donn doubles. "Obviously I have no
guarantees of beating them, but at this
specific vulnerability, my experience
is that the opponents are just trying to
push us around. We have most of the
high cards, so maybe they stepped out
of line without enough distribution."
Double by Lee. "I'm not going to be
bullied at this vulnerability. I have a
good defensive hand in context. I also
would have bid 4♥ at my previous turn
and called it clear."
After careful analysis, 4NT is the
call Lawrence eventually arrives at.
Here, readers - right here - this is why
It's Your Call can be a game-changer
for advancing bridge players. Forget
the score. Follow along as Lawrence

thinks this problem through. "North's
pass is not forcing. North's 2♥ bid
is forcing, but not forcing to game.
Hence, South's 3♥ bid is not forcing.
North could have passed that. I expect
there will be comments leading to a
different conclusion, and partnership
agreements may exist to cover this odd
sequence. However, North did have the
option of doubling 4♠. So I'm playing
partner for a 10-11 point hand with
five or more hearts. Plus, the bidding
has suggested he has one or no spades,
which is a good sign. If he has five
hearts to the queen-jack and an ace,
we have a play for game. Which game
is the issue. I could bid 5♣, clearly not
forcing, because I bid just 3♥ earlier.
Or I could bid 4NT showing two suits
- obviously clubs and hearts. This lets
partner contribute. 4NT gets my vote.
For the record, there are some layouts
where 6♥ or 7♥ is cold. Here's one
where 6♥ is excellent. But it's against
the odds. North would have bid over
4♠ with:
♠- ♥Q 9 6 5 4 2 ♦Q 7 4 3 ♣A Q 4."
Sanborn also proposes 4NT after considerable thought. "As in the
previous deal, I want to offer partner a
choice. Partner will know I have only
three hearts and a club suit. The spades
rate to be 6-3 or 5-3, so partner could
easily have a club fit. Again, my defensive prospects are weakish. I play that
we are not in a force because 3♥ was
not forcing and partner did not have a
chance to pass or bid on. Let's play for a
hand like:
♠x ♥Q J x x x ♦x x x ♣A Q x x.
Here they make and we make."
5♣ by Grossack who, like Meckstroth and others, would have chosen
to bid differently earlier. "Toughie.
Could pass or double. I think I'm only
in this position because I didn't bid 4♥
the first time - I think this hand should
sure have bid game on the last round.
In this position, I don't feel right passing, and I think 4NT might be one less
club. I would like to make a 'flexible'
double, but I think too often partner
continued on pg. 46
September 2020 Bridge Bulletin

39
September 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2020
