TGIF February 2019: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. None vul.
|
A K J 8 6 4 3
K J 10 4
A
9
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 10
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 80
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The powerful offensive nature of this hand rockets most of the panelists to a 3 jump shift.
Barry Rigal: 4. I'd like a little delicate modern science. Not too modern --- Jeff Rubens' elixir is probably 40 years old: 3 puppets 3, now 3 shows at least 5 spades, exactly 4 hearts and game forcing. Failing that, I'll sulkily bid 4 and complain about my bad luck if this doesn't work.
Zachary Grossack: 3. . . sets a game force and gives partner a 3 bid, over which I can cuebid. I will comfortably correct 3NT to 4. This way we get to hearts when partner is 0-5 in the majors.
David Waterman: 3. . . and 4 over 3NT. A good partner will never raise to 4 with only 3 trumps.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Looks like a GF. Could emphasize spades but he could have a lot of hearts.
Stephen Vincent: 4. Someone once told me that 7-4 is not a 2 suiter.
Larry Meyer: 3. Force to game and tell pard about my second suit.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. This hand evaluates as 8.5 tricks, despite being a few HCP short.
Perry Khakhar: 3. 4 LTC, 3.5 QTs, I think the strong jump shift stands out. Over 3NT, I will take it out to 4, but that is the next round of bids. Let's see if partner can surprise us by raising hearts!
Chris Buchanan: 3. My real answer is 3 (artificial and GF) as I play 3 here as 5-5 but most do not. I feel there is too much playing strength not to force to game.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. I would have opened this 4-loser hand 2 to create a forcing situation. Now I hope for a useful cue.
David Gordon: 3. Follow up with a spade bid.
Mike Roberts: 3. I'm not stopping below game, and will bid hearts on the way to 4.
Kf Tung: 3. If there is a heart fit, a grand slam is palpable!
|
| 2. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
| |
K Q
K Q 10
8 7 2
10 9 7 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
|
Rdbl
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 4
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 90
|
|
3
| 3
| 80
|
|
Pass
| 3
| 80
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
Moderator: A divisive hand.
Larry Cohen: 4. Too much for only 3. I expect partner to have 5 hearts (hard to picture him running in front of me with only 4). Yes, 4 might be touted as choice of games, but that is asking too much of partner, who might think it is a control bid in support of hearts.
Steve Robinson: Pass. Partner showed a weak hand with majors. Partner can't pass 3, so I will see what he has in the majors. Game is good if partner has: A J x x x A J x x x x x x. He could also be 6-4 in the majors and will bid 3, which I'll raise to 4.
Kerri Sanborn: 4. I hope 4 is a choice of games. Partner's preempt of 2 is used to show weakness and distribution, so our hands should match up well. I prefer to play a 6-2 spade fit over a 4-3 or 5-3 heart contract.
Sylvia Shi: 3. Sounds like partner has a weak 5-5. I'm not defending 3, so I'll raise in my better major.
David Walker: Pass. Partner knows I have 10 points.
David Waterman: 4. He must be 5-5 to bid like this.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Sounds like shapely and weak. Probably has 5 hearts but that's not a lock. I'm hoping to get 4 in next. We might not be able to beat their 5 of a minor however.
Stephen Vincent: 3. My honours fit so beautifully I'm tempted to bid more but bad breaks are more likely than usual.
Larry Meyer: 3. Good cards in both of pard's suits argues for offense, not defense.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Partner is likely to have 5-5 shape to bid here.
Perry Khakhar: 3. My partners have 5-5 in this auction. All of my values are working, but the taps could be deadly, so I will show my support for now and let partner decide on game.
Chris Buchanan: 4. I love my values for partner's suits. I think partner can handle the tap better in a 5-2 fit rather than a potential 4-3.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Partner has all the information to suggest something (if we have good agreements about what his double would mean).
Timothy Wright: 3. Partner will have an easier time scrambling for tricks in her 5-2 spade fit than her likely 4-3 heart fit.
Joel Forssell: Dbl. Penalty.
Mike Roberts: 3. I wish pass was forcing, but I don't believe it is.
Kf Tung: Pass. Now partner can show 5-5 or 6-4.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. E-W vul.
| |
A J 10 9 8 6 3
A 8 6 5 4
---
K
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1NT
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 5
| 100
|
|
2
| 4
| 90
|
|
3
| 1
| 70
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
4
| 1
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Another 3 jump shift by many panelists.
August Boehm: 3. The playing strength outweighs the high-card points. I'm willing to play 4 over a 3NT rebid --- I've been overboard before.
Jill Meyers: 4. Not fussing around with hearts on this hand.
Josh Donn: 2. . . hoping partner won't pass when we have game and otherwise leaving myself well placed.
David Waterman: 3. See my answer to problem 1.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Almost looks like the companion to problem 2. Going to emphasize spades here and risk a pass since even an 8 card heart fit could get messy with a bad break.
Larry Meyer: 2. Intending to rebid hearts next time to complete my picture.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. Show my other suit. From the lack of bidding, I can infer partner has a misfitting maximum.
Perry Khakhar: 2. The discrepancy in suit quality will make me treat the hearts as a 4 card suit. I don't think any jumps are warranted.
Chris Buchanan: 2. We like this hand because we are 7-5 and we have the room to show it, so pitter patter.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 2. I won't miss a game if he passes (probably).
Timothy Wright: 2. I want to go low facing a likely misfit.
Joel Forssell: 2. Planning to rebid hearts.
Mike Roberts: 3. This feels like the medium option, and the 9 swung me.
Kf Tung: 2. Will partner bid a ruthless 3?
|
| 4. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
K Q 9 6 5 4 2
Q J 10
K 2
5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
2
|
2
| |
|
3
|
Pass
|
3
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 7
| 100
|
|
3
| 4
| 80
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The majority of the panel commit to hearts. Game in hearts.
Mike Lawrence: 4. 3 and 3 would not be forcing.
Barry Rigal: 3. Yes, this looks ridiculously cowardly, but with no aces, I suspect game will be a struggle if my partner passes.
Mel Colchamiro: 3. Seems like partner has clubs because West doesn't seem to have diamonds, so 1-5-3-4 is certainly possible. So is 1-5-2-5. But so is 2-5-2-4. So my choice is between 4 (choice of games, I hope) and 3, to be followed by 4 if I get the chance. Difficult problem.
Christopher Diamond: 3. No aces suggest slowing down. It's pick your major and level day.
Larry Meyer: 3. Support with support.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. This hand keeps improving with each bid the opponents make. My main worry is the spade ruff.
Perry Khakhar: 4. My hand should provide partner with a decent chance to make this contract. Even if partner has x A K 9 8 x x x x A x x x where slam is possible opposite this dummy, too many handling charges for my liking. Now, if I had four hearts, I might try.
Chris Buchanan: 4. Now I have told my story: Good spade suit, want to be in game, heart support.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 4. Don't need much more than 2 tricks from partner. Prefer spades to keep control.
Timothy Wright: 4. It's a guess between major-suit games.
Kf Tung: 4. Reasonable game.
|
| 5. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
---
Q J 8 6
J 10 5 4 3 2
Q 5 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
1
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 8
| 100
|
|
4
| 3
| 70
|
|
5
| 3
| 70
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: A majority of the panelists pause to show four hearts before taking aim for the moon in diamonds.
Steve Weinstein: Dbl. I don't love it, but I don't love anything else.
Kerri Sanborn: 4. Bidding the limit, leaving the rest to partner.
Jeff Meckstroth: 5. Try for a home run and shut out a spade raise at a comfortable level. Risky bid --- can't resist at favourable vulnerability.
David Waterman: Dbl. Don't tell me it goes all pass!
Christopher Diamond: Dbl. All those fit counters are probably going to make my next bid at the 4 level at least. It might just be best to preempt with this quacky trash. But if I can get most of my hand in maybe pard might know what to do later.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Look for the possible heart fit - it could be a double-fit hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Dbl. There is no sense in trying to preempt the opponents out of spades. Take it slow so we can gauge the need to sac.
Perry Khakhar: Dbl. Classic negative double. The issues will come on the next round of bidding where we might find ourselves in a spades vs hearts fight. But I am planning on being optimistic for now.
Chris Buchanan: 5. Ah, how many diamonds to bid? My preference is 5. I won't argue with 3 but 4 cannot be correct.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Dbl. . . and later support diamonds vigorously!
Timothy Wright: Dbl. It could be better to preempt in diamonds here, but partner might be the one preempted.
Mike Roberts: Dbl. Anything else is masterminding.
Kf Tung: 5. Make or save!
|
|
