TGIF October 2018: Scores
| 1. IMPs. Both vul.
|
K 3
K 9 8 5 3
---
A K Q 10 6 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
1
|
Dbl
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 7
| 100
|
|
4
| 6
| 90
|
|
4
| 1
| 60
|
|
6
| 1
| 40
|
|
Moderator: The panel is fairly evenly split between 3 on the way to a heart call, and a direct 4.
Steve Weinstein: 3. I'm on my way to making a strong invite to slam in hearts. I'm not willing to commit to slam, but I want to make a very strong slam try by bidding 5 next.
Kerri Sanborn: 4. No way to find out. 5 asks second-round spades, and other bids risk partner bidding hearts with the lead through me. If they save, I will bid 5 as a wake-up call.
David Waterman: 4. This may be an underbid, but I see no practical way to a) investigate slam, and b) play hearts from my side.
Christopher Diamond: 4. Too tough. Find out how good his hearts are and play it from my side. The only other sequence I can think of is a cue then 5 over any non-heart bid.
Larry Meyer: 4. If pard has A Q x x in hearts and I get a spade lead, 12 tricks are likely.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. Can't think of any sensible way to ask for aces without wrong-siding the contract.
Stephen Vincent: 6. A x x x x and out makes this good: more scientific approaches will likely result in it being played from the wrong hand.
Paul Mcmullin: 4NT. It would be convenient if 4 was some gadget for hearts; if partner has one Ace, 2/3 of the time it will NOT be the A, and I'll gamble on 6.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. I think the main goal here is to play the hand, so hopefully the cue will slow down the opponents.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Well, that's what I would bid at the table as the chances of partner having the magic hand are too small.
Timothy Wright: 4. While I am strong enough for 3, we need to right-side the contract.
David Gordon: 4. Good clubs with 4+ hearts.
Diane Bolton: 5. We want to bid hearts first and be in 6 if pard has the A.
Bob Todd: 3. Impossible problem. Either 4 or 6 could be right. May end up in 6.
Qiang Wu: 3. A heart contract should be played by South and a non-strong bid here is very likely to keep the ball rolling.
Allan Simon: 6. . . gambling that partner has the A. Or opponents might err and take a phantom sacrifice .
Kf Tung: 5. If you want to play 6 or 6 you will win a lot when you are the declarer. Will partner be good for the slam invitation?
|
| 2. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
K 9 6
9 8
---
A K Q 10 9 7 6 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 4
| 100
|
|
3
| 4
| 90
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
5
| 2
| 70
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel venture a variety of approaches to this awkward hand.
Mike Lawrence: 4. In theory, this shows six clubs plus four spades.
Barry Rigal: 3. OK, you got me. I can't think how to show this hand, so I won't try. I'll pretend I just have a good hand with clubs and see what happens. I may be able to jump to 4 over a 3 cue?
Steve Robinson: 2. See what partner does to my cuebid. If partner has a weak hand, I'd like to try to get to 3NT of 5 or 6. If partner has only five spades, this hand won't play well in spades.
Daniel Korbel: 5. Yes, we have at least an eight-card spade fit. But I can see this hand playing poorly for partner. If partner's spades are decent, 5 should be easy. I'll apologize if I buy: Q J 10 x x x x x x x A x x.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Could probably get away with 2 but I'd never be able to convince him I've got 8 tricks.
Larry Meyer: 2. Cue bid to show spade support and a strong hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. A mini-splinter, but I will raise to game nonetheless.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Should really have one more spade here but partner has at least 5.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. What does partner expect from me? Comes down to style / agreements.
Timothy Wright: 4. I would love to be 4-6 or 4-7 in the blacks, but here I know partner has 5 spades and this emphasizes that I do not need a club fit.
David Gordon: 3. Try for game.
Diane Bolton: 2. Partner has at least 5 spades so this sets spades as trumps.
Allan Simon: 2. Start with a bid that shows a strong hand. My plan is to next jump to 4 over 2, setting trump and inviting a cue bid.
Kf Tung: 2. 3-card spade support, more to say later.
|
| 3. IMPs. None vul.
| |
A Q 9 2
A K Q 10 8 7 6
---
A 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
|
Dbl
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Dbl
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 5
| 100
|
|
6
| 4
| 90
|
|
Rdbl
| 3
| 70
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
4NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
5
| 1
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: With not much required from partner, the panelists envision slam.
Steve Weinstein: Rdbl. Maybe they'll have an accident. Maybe we'll learn something useful. Probably we're just postponing the eventual jump to 6. Hope this isn't the companion hand to the problem from a couple months ago when we had 4 3 2 for our 1 advance of partner's takeout double. Or that I'm playing with one of the panelists who bid 2 on that hand.
Zach Grossack: 6. This is like putting a steak in front of a rottweiler. So easy to envision a slam if partner has absolutely anything at all, or even nothing at all! x x J x x x x x x x x x x is odds-on for a slam on the auction.
Sylvia Shi: 4. On the plus side, the spade finesse is onside; the bad news is that partner could easily have a lot of nothing. Seems unlikely that my splinter will get us anywhere, but I don't think it can really hurt.
Ralph Buckley: 6. Pard must have some points outside of hearts and your tenace is behind opener.
David Waterman: 6. This is not a very realistic problem. Anyway, I hope he does not have a 3-3-5-2 yarborough.
Christopher Diamond: 6. Could make 5, 6 or 7. I'm going with 6.
Larry Meyer: 2. Cue bid to show heart support and a strong hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4NT. I'm willing to bid 6 on a spade hook. Will bid 7 if partner shows both black kings.
Laurence Betts: 3. Third cue in a row.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Partner may turn up with a black king.
Paul Mcmullin: 3. Double then 2 here would be 'good hand with diamonds', so 3 should be a splinter, setting hearts as trump.
Hendrik Sharples: 2. This is a hand where I welcome more bidding by the opponents.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. Let's find out how minimal partner is.
Timothy Wright: Rdbl. Planning to cue-bid diamonds next round.
David Gordon: 3. Splinter slam try.
Diane Bolton: 6. Partner never responds in my 7-card suit!
Allan Simon: 6. Likely the right spot.
Kf Tung: 4. Good for 4, and singleton or void in diamonds.
|
| 4. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
K 8 4
10 9 5
A J 10 6 5
J 10
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
5
| 8
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 80
|
|
3NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: A majority of the panel extends partner's preempt with a straightforward 5.
Larry Cohen: 5. I'm not expecting double- all pass (they have too much shape). Rather than something psychic/tactical, I find it best just to eat up a lot of space. I am hoping to go minus only 680 or 710.
Roger Lee: 3NT. I really don't care how many I go down, even at this vulnerability, and it might not be much if they lead badly. I just want to buy it (or sell out to four of a major).
Mel Colchamiro: 4. There are too many losers for 5 - minus 800 or 1100 loom. Besides, 4 makes West's 4 or 4 ambiguous as to strength, as it does East's 4 or 4 in response to a double by West.
David Waterman: 4. With many quite normal hands, partner will be 2 or 3 down at the 5-level. I will just preempt a little and hope they miss the best spot.
Christopher Diamond: 4. They probably have slam. I don't want to push them there. Maybe they subside in game on a cramped auction.
Larry Meyer: 5. Make them guess at the 5-level.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. It is possible this gets us too high. But the opps with a void in diamonds are unlikely to sit the double.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Try and make life a little more difficult.
Hendrik Sharples: 5. Clearly the opponents can make anything they bid, so I don’t want to goad them to the 6-level.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Took me a lot of years to learn to pass these. Risk of slam for them is abominable, but East could not find a bid. Pass leaves them in the dark about each others' diamond holding.
Timothy Wright: 5. West has a monster of a hand; we need to force her to guess what to do with it.
David Gordon: 5. This should be standard.
Diane Bolton: 5. Opps are cold for some kind of game (or slam) so let them guess at the 5-level.
Allan Simon: 5. Might even escape a double if opponents' cards are divided evenly.
Kf Tung: 4. You are willing to play 4-X, and hopefully they will end up in a not-so-safe major suit game.
|
| 5. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
A Q 3
4 2
A K 5 4
A Q 10 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
3
|
4
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Pass
| 6
| 100
|
|
4NT
| 4
| 80
|
|
4
| 3
| 70
|
|
5NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
Moderator: The uncooperative opponents have made it impossible to have a meaningful dialogue about this hand. A majority of the panel favours exploring (or committing to) slam, even though Pass was the top vote-getter.
August Boehm: Pass. Could miss slam, but the Q is devalued, and usually the adversely-vulnerable preemptor with only a so-so suit has outside values.
Jill Meyers: 4NT. I have too much to pass, and I don't think a cuebid is going to get partner to necessarily do anything intelligent. I want to know how many key cards partner has. If partner has the A K Q, I am going to bid 6NT.
Barry Rigal: 4. Ugh. One more move seems mandatory, and setting hearts is a reasonable thing to do. At least cuebidding lets partner express an opinion as to whether to cooperate.
Jeff Meckstroth: 5NT. Pick-a-slam . . . my best guess.
David Waterman: 4. Partner is under a lot of pressure here - he does not need full values to bid 4.
Christopher Diamond: Pass. Cowardly but K wrong, bad breaks and he bid under pressure.
Larry Meyer: 6. Even if pard has a minimum hand of A K Q x x x and the K, that could be 12 top tricks.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5NT. If you have a bidding decision, bid 5NT pick a slam if it is a plausible choice.
Stephen Vincent: 4NT. Ostensibly RKC but with 6NT in mind. Don't want to exclude the possibility of 7.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4NT. Quality of his hearts determines slam or not.
Timothy Wright: 4. It's hard to imagine a hand for partner with a legitimate 4 call and little play for 6; we need to go slow so 6NT and 7 are in play.
David Gordon: 4NT. Keycard for hearts.
Allan Simon: 4. Worth one cue bid. 5 should be safe, but I've been wrong before.
Kf Tung: 4. Slam interest, so that partner knows that your hand is more than 1N opening.
|
|
