TGIF March 2016: Scores
| 1. IMPs. None vul.
|
A K 7 5
Q 8 7 6
9
K J 4 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 8
| 100
|
|
4
| 7
| 90
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Constructive bidding emphasizes two elements: strain and level. The panelists make strain the first priority, and they are split on how they approach their investigation.
Daniel Korbel: 4. I think I have enough to get to game, and partner doesn't promise both majors. Even if game is a little light, we might just get lucky and make it.
Kerri Sanborn: Dbl. Modern usage is not to double for penalty in front of the bidder, so here it should be takout. It's always frustrating to guess a major and guess wrong.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. I suppose double and raise partner's major would be stronger.
Eugene Chan: 4. Somewhat aggressive but it is IMPs. Also, might induce opponents into a phantom save.
Stephen Vincent: Dbl. Partner will no doubt interpret this correctly.
Chris Diamond: 4. Overbid a bit to find the right suit.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Pard may have been forced to double with imperfect shape, so let him show his better major.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Partner knows most of your hand from the bidding, so a minimum response at the 3 level is warranted. I would like a spade lead, so . . .
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. . . asking partner to name his 4-card-suit (as he doesn't necessarily promise both of them in this situation). May be too high, but will have play.
Plarq Liu: Dbl. Responsive double.
David Gordon: 4. This looks to upgrade to a hand I want to play 4 of partner's better major.
Beverley Candlish: Dbl. Partner can pass, bid 3NT or another suit.
Kf Tung: Dbl. Better than pass. Pard will consider a game with 10+ suitable points.
Mike D Roberts: 3. Yeah, I have a stiff diamond. Whoop de do.
Timothy Wright: 3. With a double fit in the majors, it may be better to play in the weaker trump suit.
|
| 2. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
8 7 5
J
7 4 2
A K Q 10 9 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1NT
|
4
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 13
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 60
|
|
4NT
| 2
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Most of the panel say it isn't close. What's the problem?
Richard Pavlicek: 4NT. I can only guess at the best strain, and notrump seems as likely as clubs. Plus it doesn't preclude getting to clubs, as 5 would to 4NT. Partner should have a heart stopper to pass 4NT.
Don Stack: 5. At least 5 cannot be doubled on trump tricks. Seems like a very straightforward bid, with the upside that the contract may make. Is there more than we can ask a bid to accomplish?
The Sutherlins: Dbl. East may have a very good 4 bid and we can still set him one. Or he may have a poor 4 bid and we will defeat him 200 while we may not be able to make game, even when we have a heart stopper. Double and go plus.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. Game before slam, as they always say.
Eugene Chan: 5. Partner should know that 5 promises at least second round control in hearts. With an appropriate hand, partner can bid the slam.
Stephen Vincent: 5. 4NT, on the grounds that opponents with solid suits often lurk hoping to defend NT, might work but it's a bit too delicate.
Chris Diamond: 5. OK he got me.
Larry Meyer: 5. Pard's values must be in spades and diamonds, so that should cover most but not all of my losers.
Perry Khakhar: 5. What's the problem? Wouldn't you rather go minus than plus? :) Seriously, they are not likely to double and the game bonus may be at stake.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 6. Message to partner: good clubs and a heart control. with an Ace or King in Hearts I would probably not do this. Therefore partner can correct to NT if justified by his hand.
Plarq Liu: 5. No better contract.
David Gordon: 5. I think I need a spade honour before I consider a negative dbl.
Kf Tung: 5. Thanks to the 4 intervention. 5 becomes a better spot!
Timothy Wright: Dbl. . . and lead the knave. 5 is tempting but the splits are likely to be bad.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
A K Q J 7 6
K 5
K
K 8 7 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 10
| 100
|
|
3NT
| 2
| 70
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 1
| 40
|
|
3
| 1
| 40
|
|
2NT
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Most of the panel goes old school with a game-forcing jump shift.
Steve Weinstein: 3NT. Choice of games with a balanced hand and six good spades. We'd bid 2NT with 18-19 and 5-3-3-2 distribution. I'm choosing to treat this as balanced, thanks to the singleton K.
Daniel Korbel: 4. Why mess around? We will probably have play for this. At IMPs, I might try 3 to look for a magic slam.
Steve Robinson: 3. . . forcing to game and shows clubs and spades.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3NT. The kings in my short suits suggest the notrump strain. I can't envision many hands for partner where 6 is a favorite.
Eugene Chan: 3. Jump shift is a game force. Slam is a possibility. Have to give it a try.
Stephen Vincent: 3NT. Shows a strong balanced hand with running spades. This is close enough.
Chris Diamond: 3. Could be cold for a club slam or have no play for anything.
Larry Meyer: 3NT. It looks like the same number of tricks are available in NT and spades, so choose the NT game.
Perry Khakhar: 3. I am not going to arbitrarily rule out 3NT, 5, 6, or 4 all of which are possible at the moment.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. . . my -normal- forcing bid. And then repeat spades to show the extra length. (or raise 3 to 4?) I admit 3NT is tempting in matchpoints, but I only have 6 sure tricks. The cards that let 3NT make also make 4.
Plarq Liu: 3. Strong hand force to game.
David Gordon: 3. Game force. Follow up with a spade bid.
Kf Tung: 3. Tell pard you have a big hand with spades and clubs.
Timothy Wright: 3. Looking for slam is optimistic but not insane. I need partner to have two aces and help of some sort in clubs.
|
| 4. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
K 10 2
K 9 7 6 5 4 2
10
A K
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
1
|
2
(1)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Limit raise or better in hearts.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 9
| 100
|
|
3
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
4NT
| 1
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: After partner's fit-showing cue-bid, the majority of the panel invoke the self-splinter, in an attempt to find a perfecto for slam.
Allan Falk: 4. If partner has nothing in diamonds, we can easily have slam - two aces and some club length should do it given heart support. This also strongly implies spade control.
Jeff Meckstroth: 3. . . to try to get more information from partner. I can always bid Blackwood later.
Jill Meyers: 3. I have a huge hand when partner shows a heart fit. We could easily have a slam.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Slam is a faint hope at this point with my ugly spade holding, but partner is still unlimited.
Eugene Chan: 3. Partner will now clarify whether it is a limit raise or better. Explore for a slam if partner shows extras.
Stephen Vincent: 3. Any number of hearts between 4 and 7 is possible at this stage.
Larry Meyer: 4. With the spades behind my king, slam does not look good.
Perry Khakhar: 3. I am playing in 4 opposite any LR, but the (or better) part makes me cooperate with partner along the way. Splinter would end play partner into bidding 4.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. My partners never have the perfect hand: x A Q X (x) A x x x (x) x x x x or A x A Q x (x) x x x x x x x x (x) that makes slam. K T x makes me wary, so 4.
Plarq Liu: 3. Ask partner to cuebid.
David Gordon: 3. Advance cuebid.
Kf Tung: 3. Game is no problem and makes good use of your space to reach a body glove slam, just in case.
Mike D Roberts: 4. Not a misprint. 4 won't work because partner will be afraid of clubs. After 4-4-4, he should move with A.
Timothy Wright: 4. In case partner's high card points are in the wrong red suit.
|
| 5. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
A
10 4 3
A K J 10 7 5 4 2
9
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
2
(1)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Michaels, both majors.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 8
| 100
|
|
5
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 1
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The form of scoring propel the panel to the 'obvious' game . . . in hearts.
Mel Colchamiro: 5. Isn't there an urban legend-type rule about eight-card suits being trumps and never to be put down in the dummy?
Larry Cohen: 4. At IMPs, I'd bid 5, but the lure of 420 or 450 can make pigs out of us.
Mike Lawrence: 2NT. I intend to bid diamonds next, which will be forcing. 2NT will get me a range-show bid, with 3 being the weakest possible hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. I'm not sure exactly what information I can tease out of partner, but the road to 6 begins with a cuebid.
Eugene Chan: 4NT. Plain old ordinary Blackwood. Hope partner can figure this one out.
Chris Diamond: 3. If he bids hearts I'll try for slam.
Larry Meyer: 5. What do you call an 8-card suit headed by AKJ10? Trump!
Perry Khakhar: 2. . . forcing! What do you call an 8 card suit? Hand will play better in my suit than in hearts.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. The practical bid is probably 5, inquiring about heart-quality. However, that is still possible after 4, must be a splinter in support of an unnamed major. Advantage is knowing if partner is short in diamonds before asking about hearts. No 4-bid? Then 6!
Plarq Liu: 6. It is easier to play in the dark, hope one of partner's majors holds.
David Gordon: 3. Start with showing a good hand.
Kf Tung: 4. +450 is about the par score. If West does not lead a club you will get +480.
Mike D Roberts: 3. Strong hand. Diamonds. Not sure where to play. Doesn't 3 say this?
|
|
