TGIF July 2016: Scores
| 1. IMPs. N-S vul.
|
A K
J 7 6
A K Q 10 6
9 8 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
2
|
Pass
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 10
| 100
|
|
3NT
| 3
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 2
| 50
|
|
Dbl
| 1
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The majority of the panel bid what's in front of them.
Daniel Korbel: 4. Partner likely has heart shortage and yet couldn't act. I'm going to give up on 3NT, aiming rather at 4, 5 or 4. If partner bids 4 over 4, I can happily pass, which would not be the case if I doubled. I expect the majority to double.
Roger Lee: Pass. We could be cold for a number of games, but I've found increasingly that the opponents are jobbing me around at this vulnerability. Bidding with a hand like this will often cause us to declare a bad contract rather than defend one.
Richard Pavlicek: 3NT. Ugly, but I feel I have to do something, and 4 or double could lead to worse. At least it's game if I'm right. Knowing my opponents could make a difference, but most seem to have nothing these days at favourable vulnerability.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Have to say something and partner rates to be short in hearts.
Martin Henneberger: 4. We would like a longer suit to bid at the 4 level, however there is some safety after the opponents have found a fit. Doubling is seriously flawed. Passing with this many values is unattractive. That leaves the middle of the road action of bidding 4.
David Waterman: Dbl. I owe partner the 2. All other options are worse.
Chris Diamond: 4. Kind of a nothing bid, but at least it shows values.
Larry Meyer: Pass. We are more likely to go plus if we defend. The spades are not so useful for offense, but full value on defense.
Eugene Chan: 4. With a good suit and a good hand we should take some action. Bidding 4 at adverse vulnerability is an appropriate bold statement.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. Not quite good enough to fudge a double.
Perry Khakhar: 4. If they have a fit, so do we. It feels like a long way to game, but this hand is worth the attempt. I don't wish to collect 50 a pop.
Paul Mcmullin: Pass. I cannot see game for us - take likely plus at IMPs.
Timothy Wright: 3NT. Passing is reasonable, but if we are going to bid, 3NT is better than 4. Both need diamonds to behave but 3NT requires 2 fewer tricks from partner.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Why turn a possible plus into an almost certain minus?
David Gordon: 4. 3NT seems unlikely.
Plarq Liu: Dbl. With a strong hand, double first.
Beverley Candlish: Pass. Have no place to go.
Kf Tung: 4. Good hand, good diamonds and please give me 5 if you can.
|
| 2. IMPs. None vul.
| |
A 2
A 8 3
A K 7
A 8 7 6 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 3
| 100
|
|
4NT
| 4
| 100
|
|
6
| 7
| 90
|
|
5
| 1
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 30
|
|
6NT
| 0
| 10
|
|
Moderator: The votes for 4 and 4NT were lumped together because they're all using keycard Blackwood to investigate the possibility of a grand slam. If you bid 4 for some other reason, well, lucky you.
Larry Cohen: 6. Opposite a sound preemptor, this should be fine. Opposite an aggressive preemptor, 4 would be enough. Even if I had science available, I wouldn't use it, because it might tip off the killing opening lead, perhaps via a lead-directing double.
Jill Meyers: 4. . . or whatever bid is keycard in Bridge Bulletin standard. I play 4 is keycard, but if that is not allowed, please make the keycard bid for me.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Partners seldom have what one hopes for in such situations.
Martin Henneberger: 4. I checked the Bridge Bulletin Standard guide and am secure in the knowledge that 4 is used as keycard over any preempt other than 3. Seems like the right call here.
David Waterman: 4NT. If he has the K I will chance it.
Chris Diamond: 4NT. Depends on how ugly a 1st seat nonvul preempt can be I guess. Bidding six over 1 KC. Not sure if 4 is modified KC here.
Larry Meyer: 4. Ask pard for more information about his hand.
Eugene Chan: 4. Modern treatment of 4 is conventional 5 Step Keycard. In any event, 4 is forcing.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4NT. If partner shows the K and K, I'll bid 7. Kickback would allow partner to show the K in more situations.
Peter Nixon: 4. In this day and age of 'anything goes preempts', I'll just bid what I think will make.
Perry Khakhar: 4. At this vulnerability, I refuse to put an outside control card in partner's hand! Plus it has to be the K for any chance at a slam. I will take my plus: pre-empts work!
Paul Mcmullin: 4NT. If partner has two kings, I am bidding 7, good enough at IMPs.
Timothy Wright: 4NT. If we did not play RKC, this would be a lot tougher to bid.
Susan Julius: 4NT. 1430.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 6. I can construct some hands that make 7, but also some hands that don't make 6. As I cannot ask for the relevant cards AND distribution I'll bid the percentage slam.
David Gordon: 4NT. You have 11 top tricks opposite K Q x x x x x. If partner says 1 key then bid 6 otherwise stop in 5. Clubs could set up or pard could have an outside king or queen.
Plarq Liu: 4. I have all controls, look for club fit.
Beverley Candlish: 6. . . with a little prayer.
Kf Tung: 4. Slam interest. Partner will bid 4 and then you bid 6. If partner can show a good 3 opening by 4 or 4, go to 7.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. Both vul.
| |
9 6 2
J 10
7
A K 10 7 4 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 6
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 4
| 90
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
Rdbl
| 3
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: A large variety of responses to this problem.
August Boehm: 2NT. Isn't Jordan pretty standard, including the minors?
Steve Robinson: Rdbl. I'll next support clubs. If there was a forcing club raise, I'd do that.
Don Stack: 3. Although I don't feel that the splinter bid of 3 will be a popular choice, it has a lot going for it. It describes a massive club fit with shortness. This feels like a 3NT hand, and 3 may enable him to bid it.
Mel Colchamiro: 5. Even if partner has the dreaded 2NT rebid, it doesn't necessarily mean 3NT is cold. With A K Q x K Q x Q x x Q J x, 5 might be, though.
Stephen Vincent: 5. I dare say I'm supposed to do something devious.
Craig T. Wilson: 2. Inverted minor.
Martin Henneberger: 5. This hand is problematic and a pure guess. If partner has a good hand we don't want to give up on 3NT. If the hand belongs to the opponents we need to preempt. He who guesses last loses. I'm guessing first by jumping to 5 and could be very wrong doing so.
David Waterman: 3. I will bid over 4 of a major, of course, but I hope to make partner's life easier if we defend at a higher level.
Chris Diamond: 4. 3 is not enough and 5 is too high. I like 3NT as showing this: sometimes it has a play if pard passes.
Larry Meyer: 4. Make the opps start their discussion at the 4-level.
Eugene Chan: Rdbl. If partner thinks I have 10+ HCPs and no fit, that misconception will soon be eliminated.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. I don't really want to preempt above 3NT, but as usual BBS leaves us fumbling around in the dark where most partnerships would have discussed this situation beyond 3=weak.
Peter Nixon: Rdbl. Sort of a waiting bid. My next bid will depend on the opponents' reactions.
Perry Khakhar: 1. 3 or 4 aren't going to slow them down, 5 is too rich, and we don't have a lot of defense with our club holding. I would like to see if a diamond lead will beat 4/4. Also if they have a slam it is likely in diamonds!
Paul Mcmullin: 5. If partner has enough to prevent them from making game in a major, he will probably make 5.
Timothy Wright: 5. They are very likely to have a double fit here. 5 doubled could be a make or a good save.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. . . a splinter with long clubs and no major. If partner now chooses 3NT, I'll pass.
David Gordon: 5. That was simple. Next.
Plarq Liu: Rdbl. Show my strength, other club bids are weak.
Beverley Candlish: 5. . . and hope it makes.
Kf Tung: 5. Big offensive power but poor defensive values. Bid 5 for make or save.
|
| 4. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
10 8 7 6
6
A 7
K Q 9 5 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1
| 9
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
Rdbl
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
5
| 0
| 20
|
|
2
| 2
| 10
|
|
Moderator: The panel majority see a 4-card major and bid it as per normal. The minority are swayed by the situation from the previous problem: how high to raise clubs.
Steve Weinstein: 2. After the last hand, partner and I changed our system so we don't wrong-side notrump.
Allan Falk: Rdbl. Not crazy about this, but I don't want to bid spades on 10 8 x x now. I am better off showing values and later bidding clubs cheaply.
Barry Rigal: 1. I'm not sure that I'll survive this concealment of club support, but raising clubs looks unsatisfactory and might lose spades - that is, if we want to find them.
The Sutherlins: 2NT. . . taking up room and describing a limit raise in partner's minor. We don't want to start with 1 when our hand is soooo much clubs.
Martin Henneberger: 1. In most auctions when we have doubt about level and strain it is usually best to ignore the double and proceed normally. I see no reason to bypass bidding 1 here as our side could still very well belong in a spade contract.
David Waterman: 5. Seems about right.
Anssi Rantamaa: 1. One chance to find spade fit.
Chris Diamond: 3. . . . or whatever the limit raise is.
Larry Meyer: 3. Given East's double and the quality of my spades, I would rather talk about my clubs than my spades.
Eugene Chan: 1. Ignore the double and respond accordingly. It is IMPs and 1 keeps game possibilities alive.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 1. In spite of being primed with the previous question, I still make my normal bid.
Peter Nixon: 5. 2-way bid. Put the pressure on the opponents.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Splinter in support of clubs. Don't want to maneuver this auction. Describe the hand to allow partner to make the decisions instead.
Paul Mcmullin: Rdbl. Outside controls in two suits makes this a much stronger hand than the previous one.
Timothy Wright: 2NT. While 1 might be right, it will be hard to convince partner of the extent of the club fit if I do not use the limit-raise-or-better gadget now.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 1. Time enough to bid clubs later.
David Gordon: 1. Next bid will be an invitational jump in clubs.
Leonid Bossis: 2NT. Dormer.
Plarq Liu: Rdbl. Same as above.
Beverley Candlish: Rdbl. . . showing club support and some values.
Kf Tung: 1. Show some spades, and then you show the clubs and pave a path for a possible 3N by partner.
|
| 5. IMPs. None vul.
| |
J 8 6 2
K 7 5 3 2
K J 6 3
---
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
2
(1)
|
Dbl
(2)
|
Rdbl
| ? |
| (1) Natural.
| | (2) Three-card heart support.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 8
| 100
|
|
2
| 3
| 70
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 1
| 30
|
|
2
| 0
| 20
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 20
|
|
Moderator: The majority of the panel retreat to 2.
Mike Lawrence: 2. Partner would draw some inferences if I pass, and one of the inferences is that I am willing to defend against 2 redoubled. I'm not. 2 would be natural and passable. 2 is a game try but overstates the spade suit. 2 says I'm content.
Kerri Sanborn: 2. I want to make some move, but 3 sounds bigger than what I have. This will also get partner off to a good lead should we wind up defending. It is very likely that we are missing a 4-4 spade fit, but how to find without forcing the auction?
Daniel Korbel: 3. I think that I have just enough to invite, given that the opponents seem to have the club suit.
Martin Henneberger: 2. This hand just became more powerful then the 8 count it represents. Signing off in 2 here seems rather timid holding a void in the suit the opponents are advertising. In my opinion, 2 is the only unambiguous game try and I will bid it now.
David Waterman: 3. If partner passes, game is probably not cold. We are non-vul so no need to be too pushy.
Anssi Rantamaa: 3. Any extras partner?
Chris Diamond: 2. Seems like a no choice bid.
Larry Meyer: 2. With half the deck and an 8-card trump fit, playing at the 2-level feels right.
Eugene Chan: 2. Nobody vulnerable. Less need to explore game. Might try 3 after expected 3 from opps.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. The 2 bid is a mixed blessing. We discovered that our club void is useful, but missed out on a possible 4-4 spade fit.
Peter Nixon: 2. Forward going temporization.
Perry Khakhar: 2. I hate this bid, but the hand is improving nicely and we haven't denied a 4/4 spade fit. 4 may be far superior to 4!
Paul Mcmullin: 2. 2 a close second choice, but the club void feels extra useful.
Timothy Wright: 2. We might be able to make 9 or 10 tricks but we will need partner to have a bit extra. East's double implies that she might not have that extra.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. . . but if playing Walsh then 2.
David Gordon: 3. Taking club ruffs in the long hand is not as good.
Plarq Liu: 2. Weak.
Beverley Candlish: 3. Let partner set the contract.
Kf Tung: 3. Partner has 3334 and you want to invite for game.
|
|
