Matchpoints. Both vulnerable.
♠A K 9 3 2 ♥J 9 8 ♦A 10 7 2 ♣5
What’s Your Call?
What’s the problem?
The panel is emphatic about its choice — a 3♣ cuebid sets a force and asks partner to further describe their hand.
Meyers: “Let’s set a game force, then decide what to do next.”
Cohen: “I was going to check back for a spade fit anyway, so now I have to do it by bidding 3♣.”
Falk: “What’s the problem? The problem may come the next round. I can’t image the panel being less than 16–2 for the 3♣ bid.”
Never underestimate the panel.
Colchamiro: “I’m just going to bid the value of my hand with 3♣. To double is wrong — I’ve got too many diamonds and too few clubs.”
Gordons: “Do you force to game or don’t you? We do.”
Lawrence: “A 3♦ bid is only invitational. Because we could have a slam, I need to do something stronger than that.”
A slam is optimistic, but partner could hold: ♠Q 5 2 ♥A K 4 ♦K Q 9 4 3 ♣6 4.
Walker: “No matter how partner takes this — diamond support, checkback for spades or looking for 3NT — my hand qualifies.”
Joyces: “We have too much hand for 3♦ and not enough clubs for double.”
Boehm: “This hand is too strong for an invitational 3♦ bid. To make an amorphous modern-day double and torture partner is not my style.”
Rigal: “The delayed 2♣ bid should be diamonds and clubs, but obviously East is a palooka who failed to bid the round before. Double is negative but should deliver more than a singleton club. I’ll force to game with 3♣.”
Kennedy chooses double. “Double is a value-showing call,” she says. “Nearly all low-level doubles are for takeout. I’ll try and raise diamonds later.”
Two experts choose 3♦.
“I’m a little heavy for this, but it gives us a chance to get out below game,” says Meckstroth.
“3♦ is only an invite,” agree the Sutherlins, “but if partner passes, we are unlikely to have game and it’s nice to go plus playing matchpoints.”
You have a fit for partner, a good five-card suit and shortness in East’s suit. Because of this, the majority force to game. As Falk asks, what’s the problem?