TGIF March 2019: Scores
| 1. Matchpoints. N-S vul.
|
Q J 10 6 4 2
Q
K J 8 2
K 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| |
|
Pass
|
Dbl
|
Pass
|
Pass
| |
|
2
|
Pass
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 6
| 100
|
|
3NT
| 5
| 90
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
Dbl
| 1
| 60
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: You had them, but then they wriggled off the hook. Good thing you have a diamond fit to fall back on, and stoppers in the enemy suits.
Mike Lawrence: 3NT. Hamman's Law. I have the club stopper, and even if partner has Q x x, I want to play notrump from my side. There is no guarantee that 3NT is a make, but I can't find that out unless I bid it.
Zachary Grossack: 3. Sad that partner couldn't double 2, but such is life. I think that 5 might just be our best game at this point, so I'm gonna make the bid to try to get us there. I think 3 is quite descriptive: Partner will know we have at least 5 spades, four diamonds and 10-12 points.
Robert Sauve: 2NT. 12 HCP and a useful Q.
Ralph Buckley: 3NT. I'm assuming pard's dbl shows hearts and something in clubs.
Christopher Diamond: 3NT. When in doubt, 3NT. See what a bad 4-card overcall can do?
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Just as partner protected me, I must protect partner.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. The panel doesn't often downgrade, but maybe they will this time.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Sometimes there is no game. In this misfitting hand, I think we need extras from the partner, so invite.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Forcing. With length in diamonds I do not like the look of defending 2.
David Gordon: 3. Downgrade to highly invitational.
Kf Tung: 3NT. Right-siding the notrump.
|
| 2. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
Q 5
A K Q 10 9
9 7 3
A J 6
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 10
| 100
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
2
| 2
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The panel majority double to show extras.
Larry Cohen: Dbl. In modern bridge, this means extras. And extras I have! Much more economical than 3.
Jill Meyers: 2. . . although I think it's close between 2 and 2. I'm not in love with rebidding a 5-card suit, but I have too much to pass, and my hearts are so good it looks like there are 6 of them.
Steve Robinson: 3. I think we belong in game, and this will give partner a chance to complete a description of his hand.
Ralph Buckley: 3. Have to show pard I have an opening hand.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Pretty much everything has flaws.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Don't want to raise with a doubleton, rebid a 5-card suit, or bid no-trump without a stopper, so I'll double to show my extra values.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. This could play well in a 5-2 fit if partner is also short in diamonds.
Perry Khakhar: Pass. What's the problem? Seems like a straightforward pass to me.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. Competitive double. More than just an overcall but no suitable bid.
David Gordon: 3. . . forward going.
Norm Tucker: 2. Perhaps partner has 6 spades.
Kf Tung: 3. New suit forcing and a good hand.
|
| 3. Matchpoints. None vul.
| |
K 7
A Q 8 6
J 10 9 8 4
10 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1NT
| 8
| 100
|
|
2
| 5
| 80
|
|
2
| 2
| 60
|
|
2
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: The majority bid 1NT despite the lack of a stopper. The poor club suit never gets any respect.
Kerri Sanborn: 2. I have way too much to pass, but no perfect bid. It's not the end of the world if I play it here, matchpoints notwithstanding.
Sylvia Shi: 1NT. I must bid and I have never been too concerned about stoppers playing 1NT. And besides . . . it's clubs! Clubs is not a suit.
Robert Sauve: 2. K × is better than x x x.
Christopher Diamond: 2. An advertisement for transfer advances?
Larry Meyer: 2. Don't want to raise with a doubleton or bid no-trump without a stopper, so bid my 5-card suit.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. Not perfect, but a non-forcing 2 bid is also misleading.
Perry Khakhar: 2. I'm okay with playing either in my 5-card suit, partner's suit, or the unbid major which we will discover soon. I am not crazy about playing in NT, but let's see what partner decides.
Paul Mcmullin: 2. 1N is my second choice.
Chris Buchanan: 2. Constructive one round force.
Michael Roberts: 2. I hope partner doesn't like 4-card overcalls.
David Gordon: 2. Show a new suit and forward going.
Norm Tucker: 2. Too weak for any other encouragement.
Kf Tung: 2. Some strength, not inclined to 1N and not inclined to 2. Partner is welcome to pass, 2 or 2. If partner can bid 2, raise to 3.
|
| 4. IMPs. None vul.
| |
A
K Q 7 5 3
A 4 3
A K 8 7
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
|
3
| |
|
Pass
|
3
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 10
| 100
|
|
4
| 3
| 70
|
|
3NT
| 2
| 60
|
|
Moderator: Which game? The majority bump to 4.
Mike Lawrence: 3NT. If 4 is our spot, partner will have a good enough suit to bid them again. Not sure that 2NT wouldn't have been a better bid. Jump shifting with a 5-4 hand is space-consuming, especially when you don't have any idea what to do after partner rebids his suit.
Barry Rigal: 4. My partner has shown good spades and I have the equivalent of doubleton support. This is the easiest way to limit my hand and will allow partner to use his spades, whereas dummy may be entryless in 3NT.
Roger Lee: 4. . . a bit ambiguous, but I'm intending to remove 4 to 4 to show a good 4 bid. I just have too many good cards to bid only 4 despite the singleton support.
Robert Sauve: 4. Do we play weak jump shifts? We have all prime values, worth one more bid.
Christopher Diamond: 4. 4 is likely to confuse.
Larry Meyer: 4. My cards will cover partner's losers in his side suits.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 4. If partner has good spades then we belong in 4; if scattered values then 3NT. Who knows?
Perry Khakhar: 4. I think ace of trumps is better than 2 small for support! If partner has the Q, the hand should be played from his side.
Chris Buchanan: 4. Let's play in partner's suit.
Michael Roberts: 3NT. Yes, this might not be the best contract, but it's the most descriptive call.
Norm Tucker: 3NT. I opened and showed strength partner can go forward if he wants.
|
| 5. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
A K 6
K 8 6 4 3
Q 8 7 6 5
---
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
1NT
(1)
|
Pass
|
3
| ? |
| (1) Six clubs and four spades.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
4
| 9
| 100
|
|
4
| 2
| 70
|
|
5
| 3
| 70
|
|
5
| 1
| 60
|
|
Dbl
| 0
| 60
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: West has been very helpful in giving us a road map to bid and play this hand. But first we have to get wherever we're going.
Steve Weinstein: 4. . . an ambiguous force. It sounds like partner is at most 2-2 in the majors, so we need very little for slam. I'll bid 4 over either 4 or 4. Hopefully partner will get the message that I have diamond support eventually. Maybe when I bid 6. Or correct his 6 back to 7.
Mel Colchamiro: 4. Partner is almost certain to have five cards in diamonds, given no support double, and at most two spades, given the opposition bidding. My second choice is 6, though I'm a little worried about bad splits and the lack of the 10.
Josh Donn: 5. This has to show club shortness and diamond support. It seems perfect for this hand. We don't need to worry about hearts after partner didn't make a support double.
Robert Sauve: 5. Bid what I think we can make.
Christopher Diamond: 6. Support doubles here? If so, he's like 1-2 in the majors. Could be missing 7.
Larry Meyer: 4. First and second round control in both of their suits, but our suits look porous.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 5. Exclusion keycard. This could reasonably be in hearts or diamonds (or both by agreement).
Perry Khakhar: 4. I think that we may have a slam in diamonds! 4 should be forward going. Let's see what partner does.
Chris Buchanan: 4. Tell me more partner.
Norm Tucker: 4. My partner would approve, my hand has good value.
Kf Tung: 5. Diamond support, and must be void in clubs!
|
|
