TGIF September 2019: Scores
| 1. IMPs. N-S vul.
|
5
K 2
A 10 6 2
A Q J 10 9 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 9
| 100
|
|
2
| 4
| 80
|
|
2
| 2
| 70
|
|
Moderator: Modern style is to loosen up the requirements for a 3 rebid.
Jill Meyers: 2. Not quite enough to jump to 3 or reverse, although the vulnerability and the fact that it is IMPs are appealing.
Kerri Sanborn: 3. It's just too good for 2 and not right for 2. Modernists are loosening the requirements pointwise for the jump rebid and concentrating on trick-taking potential. In losing trick count, this evaluates to an eight-winner hand.
Sylvia Shi: 2. I'm doing it. I like my shape and the opponents are silent, so partner probably has a decent hand. This is going to be the best way to describe my hand and find a slam or the right game.
Aidan Ballantyne: 2. Slight overbid but at least it describes a two-suiter, unlike 3.
Robert Sauve: 3. Rebid my good textured values. Maybe get to 3N.
Christopher Diamond: 2. Slight overbid to show most of my cards. Gets kind of murky unless continuations over pard's 2 or 2NT are clear.
Larry Meyer: 2. The club length and strength make this hand strong enough for a reverse.
Gary Harper: 2. If partner can't move over 2 then we're probably not going to miss much.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. Make the normal value bid. If they find spades then so be it.
Stephen Vincent: 2. A stretch but anything else is too much of a distortion.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Semi-solid club suit and 1.75 potential entries. Plus the spade suit isn't out yet!
Chris Buchanan: 3. Not enough to reverse but a little too much for 2.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. Tempted to upgrade the heart holding and reverse.
Timothy Wright: 2. I am minimum for this call, but at least we can find the best fit now.
Marco Paladino: 2. Phony reverse.
David Gordon: 2. Little light for a reverse.
Allan Simon: 2. The 1 response has improved my hand so it is worth a reverse. Over 1 I would have rebid 2.
|
| 2. IMPs. E-W vul.
| |
A 6 2
J 7 4
K J 10 7
Q 8 4
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
1
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
1NT
| 10
| 100
|
|
2
| 1
| 60
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
Dbl
| 2
| 60
|
|
2
| 1
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 40
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 40
|
|
Moderator: Though they have 11 points, enough for 2NT, the panel dial it back to 1NT.
Mike Lawrence: 2. Serious flaws everywhere. I choose 2 and hope for more bidding from partner.
Kerri Sanborn: 2NT. All other bids are equally flawed. Double solves a problem only if partner bids notrump, and 2 forces to 3NT if partner raises.
Zachary Grossack: 2. A little light, but A x x really has no interest in declaring notrump here --- with almost any spade holding, partner is better off being the declarer. And I have 11 points.
Mel Colchamiro: Dbl. I hate making a negative double with only three hearts --- things never seem to go right when I do this. But I hate everything else more. The hand screams for notrump to be played from partner's side, so that's what I'm hoping for. Over 2 I'm gonna pass, hoping to go plus.
Josh Donn: 1NT. The range for this is something like a good 7 to a bad 11. I always regret saying this, but this really should be unanimous. 2NT is a mistake.
Aidan Ballantyne: Dbl. The original negative double. Hoping for NT from the other side.
Larry Meyer: 1NT. Show a forward-going balanced hand with a spade stopper.
Gary Harper: 1NT. If partner complains that I'm too heavy, I'll pretend I didn't see the J.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 1NT. A balanced hand and a stopper. Sometimes you have your bid.
Perry Khakhar: 2NT. A x would have been more difficult. But I need to show my values, even though they are quacky. Another 10 would cinch it for this bid, but this should be okay.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. Most flexible bid in the box.
Hendrik Sharples: 2. Hoping NT plays better from partner's side.
Timothy Wright: 2NT. 1NT might be right at matchpoints, but at IMPs I want partner to go to game with a decent weak NT opener.
Allan Simon: Dbl. Most flexible call. Over 2 I plan to rebid 2 hoping to right-side 3NT.
|
| 3. IMPs. None vul.
| |
8 7 6 3 2
4
A K Q 4 3
10 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
1
|
Dbl
|
1
| |
|
2
|
Dbl
(1)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) Three-card spade support.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 9
| 100
|
|
2
| 5
| 80
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
4
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: Despite the pitiful suit and ample warning that trumps may be unfriendly, 3 is the consensus favourite.
Daniel Korbel: 2. Not worth a game try in my opinion, after right-hand opponent has doubled, implying three or four spades. Spade honors will be offside and the suit may break badly.
Roger Lee: 3. Not a particularly good description, but a spade invite sounds about right on values. 3 would be nonforcing.
Aidan Ballantyne: 4. Practical.
Robert Sauve: 3. Spades are not great.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Oh goody he has 3 spades and 10-20 HCP. I hate support doubles. I'm going to game but will keep options open.
Larry Meyer: 3. Invite game and show a heart control.
Gary Harper: 2. May be too conservative, though spades could easily be 4-1 on the auction with partner's honors (in trumps and hearts) likely poorly placed. All that and a possible tap in hearts.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. Don't get overboard --- any trump finesses are likely to fail.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Partner may consider this as how good are your spades. Opponents may take the transfer to 4. I think we have sufficient defence to beat 4, and if partner's spades are Q 10 x or worse, we are down in any spade contract.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Game try.
Hendrik Sharples: 4. Canadian game try, eh?
Timothy Wright: 3. 3 will be a popular call but it will not help partner evaluate her hand.
Allan Simon: 4. No guarantees, but worth a shot at IMPs.
|
| 4. Matchpoints. Both vul.
| |
A K Q 10 5 2
7
A Q 7 6
6 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
2
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
3
| 10
| 100
|
|
2
| 4
| 70
|
|
3
| 1
| 70
|
|
3
| 0
| 70
|
|
Moderator: The vast majority aim for big things in diamonds with a splinter.
Larry Cohen: 2. At IMPs, I would immediately start the search for a diamond slam via 3, but at matchpoints, I can't afford to end up in 5 opposite something like: x A K x x K J 10 x x x J x. I am not giving up on a diamond slam, but paving the way for a spade game for now. Jumping in spades would just preempt our own auction.
Barry Rigal: 3. I'm not going to pass 3NT here. I'm worth at least two slam tries, and describing my shortness will let partner know where I live.
Aidan Ballantyne: 3. Level first, strain second. I will correct 3NT to 4. Slam may need to be played from pard's side, even if we have a spade fit.
Robert Sauve: 3. Show fit right away.
Christopher Diamond: 3. Yeah, it's matchpoints and maybe I should either emphasize spades or slow it down with 3, but slam is so likely. If he has A and K I want to encourage that.
Larry Meyer: 3. Let's continue the conversation --- hoping for slam if controls are present.
James Harris: 3. Assuming this is not a 2 over 1 auction.
Gary Harper: 4. Back in the day (before Minorwood reared its ugly head) we used to cue bid slam hands. If 4, then 4 hoping for a club cue. If no cue bid from partner, then 5 is likely the right spot.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2. We need a backup plan (4) in case the diamond slam is not there.
Perry Khakhar: 3. Source of tricks and a great support for partner! I will splinter to see how high we belong.
Chris Buchanan: 3. Splinter best describes this hand.
Hendrik Sharples: 3. If I was passing 3NT I’d splinter, but I think I’m too good to do that.
David Gordon: 3. . . splinter in support of diamonds. Pull 3NT to 4.
Bob Todd: 3. Splinter I hope.
Allan Simon: 3. If partner has K x(x), it is important to play from his side. Example J x x A x x K J x x x K x.
|
| 5. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
A 10 2
K Q 7 6
A 10 8 7 3
Q
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 9
| 100
|
|
Dbl
| 6
| 90
|
|
Pass
| 0
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 50
|
|
Moderator: Nobody passed this collection. The disparity between 2NT and double depends on whether or not equal level conversion is available.
Steve Weinstein: 2NT. Not quite right on shape and not quite right on values, but it is still the least bad bid.
Steve Robinson: Dbl. If partner bids 3 or 2NT, I can bid 3, which shows diamonds and hearts.
Aidan Ballantyne: 2NT. Stayman will find a heart fit if we belong in game.
Robert Sauve: Dbl. Correct to 3 if pard bids 3.
Christopher Diamond: Dbl. Assuming he shows clubs and values, 3NT next.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. Hoping to find a fit in one of the red suits.
Gary Harper: 2NT. Double is tempting if partner promises not to bid 3 (or Lebensohl into 3).
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2NT. As usual, worry about the suit the opponents have actually bid.
Stephen Vincent: 2NT. Swayed by the 10.
Perry Khakhar: Dbl. This one is a little easier than if the minors were switched!
Chris Buchanan: 2NT. Off shape but hopefully partner can forgive a minor indiscretion.
Hendrik Sharples: Dbl. Good equal level conversion hand.
Timothy Wright: 3. This is why BBS should explicitly include (or exclude) ELC.
David Gordon: 2NT. Right on values. At least the singleton is an honour.
Allan Simon: 2NT. Holding my nose, but the alternatives are worse. I refuse to double with a stiff club.
|
|
