TGIF August 2017: Scores
| 1. IMPs. None vul.
|
K J
8 7 6
A Q 3
A K Q 9 8
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 9
| 100
|
|
3
| 2
| 70
|
|
Dbl
| 4
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 0
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 0
|
|
Moderator: The panel choose to cue bid the enemy suit, rather than venture a [support] double without 3-card support.
Mike Lawrence: 3. . . the only bid that does the trick. But even it is tainted. Partner might construe it as showing a cuebid for spades with four-card support. He might also think I have: K 5 4 3 A Q A K Q 10 7 4 3. I flirted with making a support double and bidding again to show a good hand, but that has its problems too.
Barry Rigal: 3. Ugh! Rodwell would say you can make a support double with these values and two spades, but I'll have to bid on anyway over a 2 rebid, so I might as well go the whole hog and force to game, hoping to hear 3/3/3NT, when I will know what to do.
Kerri Sanborn: Dbl. A further feature of support doubles is that we can make one with a good hand that doesn't contain three-card support. If we keep this in mind, the next round of bidding frequently clarifies our intent.
Stephen Vincent: 3. Got a heart stop partner?
David Waterman: 3. Just rule out the bids that are even worse, and you are left with 3.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Really want to make a support double because I hate them. Probably would have opened 2NT.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Treating K J as equivalent to 3-card support. If I am dummy, will put my 8 in with my spades. :-)
Eugene Chan: 3. Unlike many others, I do not believe in bypassing diamond suits. Hence I can safely make this semi-artificial reverse with complete safety. Partner cannot raise to 4 without a longer spade suit.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. The negative inferences of failing to support dbl, raise spades or reverse make this an unusually well-defined cue bid.
Hk Ho: 3. Asks pard to go 3NT with heart stopper.
Timothy Wright: 3. We're fine if partner has 5 good spades and rebids them, or 4 spades and a heart stopper.
David Gordon: 3. A diamond light.
Mike Roberts: 3. Best of a bad lot.
Plarq Liu: 3. Artificial reverse, showing strong hand, no support in spades and no heart stoppers.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. Not sure if support doubles are standard or not, but assuming not, double just shows extras.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. Assuming support doubles are in play, I have to do something to convey this hand.
Allan Simon: 3. I couldn't resist the West Coast cue bid.
Kf Tung: 3. Game is there. A path to 3N in North, 4 or 5. Who knows, partner may even be good for a slam?
|
| 2. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
A Q J 7
7 4 3
J
J 7 6 5 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1NT
(1)
|
Pass
|
2
(2)
|
Pass
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) 15-17.
| | (2) Transfer.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 9
| 100
|
|
4
| 5
| 80
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The majority make the value bid of 3.
Steve Weinstein: 4. There are too many hands where game is cold and partner won't raise a 3 bid. If I bid 3 and partner tank-passes, I will be sweating it.
Steve Robinson: 2. I have what partner might expect. Partner might not even have four spades.
Roger Lee: 3. If partner has short hearts, we need very little to make a game; the opponents may push us to the three-level anyway, so I want to show some values.
Stephen Vincent: 3. Game is very possible, but I don't want to hang partner.
Gilbert Lambert: 3. Planning to bid 3 over 3.
David Waterman: 3. It would be helpful to know what partner's options were over 1NT.
Christopher Diamond: 2. A little heavy, but don't want to punish pard.
Larry Meyer: 2. Pard does not want to defend 2, and is suggesting that he holds 4 spades, so bid to our level of fit.
Eugene Chan: 2. Unless the match is in jeopardy, I will not invite a magical spade game opposite a perfect 4-1-4-4 ten count in partner's hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Our chances of game are diminished on a trump lead, but I still think the panel will take a shot.
Hk Ho: 3. With a short suit in hand, a long trump suit is better. If West competes to 3, bid 3 for partner to choose. As no game is in sight, choosing a makeable contract should be the aim in IMPs.
Timothy Wright: 3. I've got exactly what partner wants.
David Gordon: 3. I am going to compete to 3.
Mike Roberts: 4. I don't think partner's pre-balancing, but even so, K x x x x K x x x K x x x gives me a play.
Plarq Liu: 2. The cheapest rebid. Also usually take out in hearts implies spade anyway.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Partner is not overly strong but likely off-shape. Going to invite a skinny game.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. I'll opt for the lesser number of tricks.
Allan Simon: 2. Lead directing.
Kf Tung: 2. Partner has some strength, but you do not want to defend 2. Choose 2, and wait for developments.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
A 2
K 4
A J 9 8 7 6 5
A K
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
1
|
Pass
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 11
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 60
|
|
2NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
3NT
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Another hand without a bid. A majority of the panel agrees that 3 is an underbid, but what to do?
Larry Cohen: Dbl. Too much for 3. Yes, I might have to correct hearts to diamonds, but we could have a game opposite as little as: x x x A x x x x x x x x x.
Geoff Hampson: 3. I don't have enough to do more myself. I will double back in over 3.
Stephen Vincent: 3. Most awkward. Yes: partner might have K x x, but there's no way of finding out.
David Waterman: 3. . . and I will double over 3. If the diamonds are running I will be sorry, but 3NT is too much of a shot for me.
Christopher Diamond: 3. All flawed options. So pick one.
Larry Meyer: 3. Pard is likely to hold at least 2 diamonds, so we should be safe at the 3-level.
Eugene Chan: 3. When I double the opponents' inevitable 3 call, partner should envision my hand exactly as described: 4+ defensive winners and long diamonds.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Where are the hearts? Partner must be very weak if he couldn't negative double.
Hk Ho: 3. E/W should have a minimum of 16-17 HCP, leaving at most 4-5 for pard. If he has K x x, 3NT would be a good contract. If he has x x and nothing else, 3 is a good bet. Can't expect a perfect world, but hope for +110.
Timothy Wright: 2NT. Partner won't know that K x x in spades or diamonds is enough for 3NT to come home, but perhaps she has both.
David Gordon: Dbl. Next bid is diamonds.
Mike Roberts: 3. Yeah, I'll miss 3NT, but I'll only know it's right after I've bypassed it.
Plarq Liu: 3. It is strong enough to bid 3 without partner's support.
Chris Buchanan: 3. 2 making is likely not going to score well so I will risk 3 here. The problem with double is I would rather play a 7-1 fit than a 4-2.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. Do I dare double 3 if that's what comes back to me?
Allan Simon: 3. I have a hunch partner will come to life with 3.
Kf Tung: 3. Your hand is good for 3, not 3 if you double 2 now.
|
| 4. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
4
9 8
10 9 8 7 5
A Q 9 7 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
2
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 7
| 100
|
|
4
| 5
| 90
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel see the potential of the monster fit with the good suit on the side.
Barry Rigal: 4. I play fit jumps facing overcalls, and because I really want a club lead, I'm happy to stick with my system. Were that not available, maybe 5 would be my best bet.
Daniel Korbel: 4. This is a great hand for partner, and we could easily have a slam, i.e., J x x A x x A K x x x K x. I will let partner in on the good news. Second choice, 4, which I usually play as a fit-showing jump.
Sylvia Shi: 5. I have a great hand and I'm not letting partner out below five, so why not put the opponents to a guess if they have one?
David Waterman: 3. It is tempting to bid game, but partner may still have 4, or just defence generally. It is not obvious we belong at the 5-level.
Christopher Diamond: 5. Don't know who can make anything . . . so the old standby: preempt as high as it scares you.
Larry Meyer: 4. This will only serve to transfer the opps into 4, but perhaps they will get too high looking for slam.
Eugene Chan: 4. Textbook standard fit jump even without discussion. Partner will be buying the beers if he thinks it is a splinter.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. The choice is maximum preemption vs. lead direction. Bidding 4 leaves me room to bid 5 later, but it also gives the opps a last train bid. Probably better to just make everyone guess.
Hk Ho: 3. I hope 3 is forcing. If they compete to 3, raise pard to 4. Pard knows what to lead.
Timothy Wright: 4. Let's suggest, but not demand, a sacrifice.
David Gordon: 5. Let them guess.
Det Ladewig: 4. Familar - think I bid this at the table.
Mike Roberts: 5. Gets the lead and (I hope) the level right.
Plarq Liu: 4. Have to rise up fast.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Getting my lead director in first.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5. Hopefully partner has x x x (x) K x (x) A Q x x x x x (x). If he has a spade honour, I hope the K is onside.
Peter Qvist: 5. Lead a club if they bid 5; if they don't please bid 5.
Allan Simon: 3. Enough for now. If 4 comes back to me I will direct the lead with 5.
Kf Tung: 3. Constructive. 3 will mislead partner for a stronger hand, and 4 will mislead partner for a weaker hand.
|
| 5. IMPs. None vul.
| |
6
A 10 8 7
9 8 7 5
A 10 6 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
|
2
| |
|
Pass
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 7
| 100
|
|
5
| 4
| 90
|
|
6
| 3
| 70
|
|
4
| 0
| 60
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
4NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The hand is a monster in the context of the bidding. The question is how best to proceed.
August Boehm: 4. 5 is straightforward, but 4, logically a splinter since 3 shows delayed support, is better to reach 6 opposite the likes of: A J x x K Q x x K Q J x x.
Jeff Meckstroth: 5. Easy at teams to try for the game bonus.
Mel Colchamiro: 4. It's a Bluhmer (named after the late Lou Bluhm). Partner has shown an enormous hand with a stiff diamond. If he had: A K x x K x x x K Q J x x, 2 would be enough, wouldn't it? So maybe he has the same hand with the Q.
Josh Donn: 6. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a forcing bid to agree clubs without a special agreement.
Stephen Vincent: 5. Time to show signs of life.
David Waterman: 4. I will return the favour! My hand is very good on the auction.
Christopher Diamond: 5. Since he went out of his way to pattern out with a good hand, I only worry that this is too little.
Larry Meyer: 4NT. Sounds like pard is 4=4=0=5 with extra values, so with a good fit and good controls, check for key cards.
Eugene Chan: 4. Partner has shown great strength with shortness in diamonds. With no wasted values in diamonds, time to make a slam try.
Laurence Betts: 5. Would have bid 3 over 1.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. Easier choice if we were vulnerable. Clubs is definitely the best shot at game, though I'm worried 4 is our limit.
Hk Ho: 4. Pard should have 16 HCP and 4-3-1-5 shape for his bid. 4 is a good bet if pard has A K Q x and K Q x x x.
Mike Roberts: 6. Assuming partner would rebid 2NT with all 4-3-2-4's, he's marked with a stiff (or void) diamond.
Bob Todd: 4. 6 is probably on the heart finesse. Partner should be 4-3-1-5 or 4-3-0-6.
Plarq Liu: 4. Extra clubs.
Chris Buchanan: 5. I'm in for game. Partner is likely 4-3-1-5 and I like the tap in clubs better.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 5. He seems to be proposing a Moysian 4. In that case he's either 4-3-2-4 or 4-3-1-5. I think 5 has better play.
Peter Qvist: 5. Pard is 4-3-1-5 .
Allan Simon: 4. One splinter deserves another, my hand could hardly be better.
Kf Tung: 4. You only have 4 hearts and strength in what you have bid!
|
|
