Call-by name (CBN) and call-by-value (CBV) have been defined as the dual solutions to a critical pair at the heart of cut-elimination in classical sequent calculus. When one moves to intuitionistic logic, this symmetric picture breaks, but what happens precisely? How are such definitions adapted to the intuitionistic case? How do the resulting calculi relate to the many other proposals for intuitionistic CBV and CBN calculi? And what does that break of duality say about intuitionistic logic? We find that proof-theory alone distills new CBV and CBN lambda-calculi which agree, in a technical sense, with the computational lambda-calculus and the ordinary lambda-calculus, respectively; but the former distilled calculus is contained in the latter - a vindication of Plotkin. This containment, in turn, rests on another asymmetry: a certain permutative/focalization conversion, named T, solves what remains of the classical critical pair in favor of CBN, while the symmetric solution with a certain CBV conversion Q does not exist. In this sense we may say intuitionistic logic enjoys a CBN bias. Full answers to the above questions require us to work simultaneously with sequent calculus and its equivalent bidirectional natural deduction. The former syntax is our starting point, where we track the (lost) symmetries and find the idea of permutative conversions; the latter syntax is the bridge towards more traditional programming notations. For instance, only in bidirectional natural deduction one sees that T eliminates the difference between "let" and explicit substitution, and only there one understands what calling paradigm corresponds to the superimposition of CBN and CBV.