TGIF February 2021: Scores
| 1. IMPs. E-W vul.
|
9 4
Q 10 8 6
A 3
A K 5 3 2
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
1NT
(1)
|
2
(2)
|
Pass
| ? |
| (1) 15-17 HCP.
| | (2) Natural.
|
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 9
| 100
|
|
4
| 4
| 80
|
|
3
| 0
| 60
|
|
Pass
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The majority choose 2NT.
Jeff Meckstroth: 4. Partner is likely to have at least six spades, so I am going for the game bonus.
Kerri Sanborn: 2NT. . . the generally accepted way of inviting in partner's major-suit overcall of a 1NT opening. A direct raise would be more of a fitting or mixed raise.
Zachary Grossack: Pass. Misses a nonvulnerable game once in awhile, but partner will appreciate the room. Sometimes, partner wants to come in with the intent of obstructing the opponents at this vulnerability. Vulnerable, I'd make a game try with 2NT.
David Waterman: Pass. Any bid is a guess. Does 2NT show this hand? Not worth risking the plus at this vulnerability.
Gary Harper: 4. Spade honours onside, maybe even a diamond ruff --- I think we'll make 4 opposite almost all 2 overcalls.
Christopher Diamond: 2NT. A way to get to a 3 invite. Not quite enough for 4. 2NT as a one round force almost always seems sensible.
Larry Meyer: Pass. Partner denied game interest by bidding spades directly instead of doubling and then bidding spades.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. Game invite/describe hand if max. Partner will bid 3 if min.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2NT. I'm tempted to pass, but game is certainly not impossible.
Paul McMullin: Pass. My heart cards are likely worthless. Maybe pard can make 2.
Chris Buchanan: Pass. Not much of a fit. Good support cards.
Hendrik Sharples: Pass. Assuming DONT partner had a way to show a good hand with spades.
Allan Simon: 3. I'm going for the gusto on this one. If partner rebids 3, I bid 3NT, else we're playing 4.
David Gordon: Pass. Usually the goal of interfering over strong NT is to play.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. Agreements? What hands can he NOT have? If a 2-suiter is excluded, 2NT is more attractive. I will pass 3 (which should indicate a minimum and probably promise 6 spades). 3 is forcing in my book; 3NT the most likely game.
John McAllister: Pass. Would be nice to know the rest of my system over NT.
Earle Fergusson: 3. Can't do less as A Q J x x x x x x x x x x gives a play for 4.
Kent Ritchie: 3. Will leave it to partner. How good is his 2 overcall?
Kf Tung: 2NT. Tell partner that East has a weak hand, and you can have a game if partner has 6 tricks.
|
| 2. IMPs. Both vul.
| |
A 5
7 6
A J 8
A K J 9 8 5
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
Pass
|
1
| |
|
1
|
1
|
1
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2NT
| 6
| 100
|
|
2
| 3
| 70
|
|
3
| 3
| 70
|
|
3NT
| 3
| 70
|
|
2
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The majority complete their rebid plan (either 2NT or 3) despite the interference. The minority deviate, either punting with 2 or kicking it in with 3NT.
August Boehm: 2. Like most, I have my eye on 3NT, but hope to maneuver notrump into partner's hand to protect a spade holding like Q x x.
Larry Cohen: 2NT. My plan when I opened was to show 18-19 balanced, and nothing has changed that. I even have both of their suits stopped.
Jill Meyers: 3NT. We are vulnerable at IMPs and there are too many hands partner would pass a 2NT rebid that we could make game.
Josh Donn: 3. If we belong in 3NT, we can always get there. But if it's a partscore hand, why wouldn't I expect clubs to be better?
Robert Sauve: 3. Try for 3NT. Will play better from partner's side.
David Waterman: 2NT. Could bid 3NT on values, but 4 could easily be best, so keep that option open.
Christopher Diamond: 2NT. 3 might get messy if he has no easy rebid. Forcing anyone?
Larry Meyer: 3NT. No guarantees, but that's where the money is.
Michael Dimich: 2NT. Fabulous club suit merits 2NT.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2NT. I don't know if my original plan was to rebid 2NT or 3, but I'd better show my stoppers now.
Paul McMullin: 3. About describes this hand. If partner has extras, we should be able to stumble to game. I do not want to play NT if he is minimum.
Chris Buchanan: 2. I will need support from partner to move towards game. Hopefully partner can show a spade stopper.
Hendrik Sharples: 2NT. At least this time I have stoppers in their suits.
Allan Simon: 3. I don't have enough imagination for anything else.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: 3. This must have been my original bidding plan, so let's execute that. Uninterrupted 2NT is also an option. Am I denying 3 hearts? Then maybe 2NT should be an option, but I dislike the aces as stoppers.
Earle Fergusson: 3NT. Faint heart ne'er won vully game.
Kent Ritchie: 2. Don't expect partner has much.
Bob Zeller: 3. I think 3 is a better description of my hand than 2NT.
Kf Tung: 2NT. You have 7 tricks, will partner have A and some little help for a game?
|
| 3. IMPs. None vul.
| |
K Q 9 7
2
A 7 4
Q J 8 4 3
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
Dbl
|
Rdbl
| |
|
2
|
Pass
|
Pass
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 12
| 100
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 60
|
|
3
| 1
| 50
|
|
3NT
| 0
| 50
|
|
2
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: The vast majority double for penalty.
Jill Meyers: 3. I am endplayed into bidding 3 and hoping partner didn't open light. Double is a reasonable alternative.
Steve Robinson: 2NT. If I was on lead, I would double and lead a heart. But with partner on lead, double could be costly, especially if it takes the correct defence and a lead from my side. If partner has J x x A x x x x x A K x x, we could be minus 280 when 6 has a play.
Zachary Grossack: Dbl. . . but most importantly, in good bridge tempo. Many players would have a tendency to double slowly here, as it is a tough problem. How unfortunate it is that tempo makes life difficult and sometimes creates ethical issues.
Roger Lee: 3. There's a chance this will right-side 3NT. I don't mind doubling with this shape, but my honour structure looks a little unsuitable for defense.
David Waterman: Dbl. I am not happy with this --- what should partner do with 3-5-1-4 minimum? But what are my alternatives?
Gary Harper: Dbl. I interpret partner's pass as showing a willingness to defend.
Christopher Diamond: Dbl. Should probably have another diamond, but I don't like 3NT on a misfit and he can overrule.
Larry Meyer: Dbl. It's our hand, so they can't play anything undoubled.
Michael Dimich: Dbl. Automatic diamond lead to crush E/W.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 2NT. I hate to downgrade because the panel tends to be optimistic, but I just don't see this as a game force.
Paul McMullin: 3. Should be forward going; 3N would be better from his side.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. Cooperative double.
Hendrik Sharples: Dbl. Perfect blame transfer opportunity!
Allan Simon: Dbl. If it makes, it's only IMPs.
David Gordon: 3. Try for game.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Dbl. Why did I redouble? I had a perfectly reasonable 2 available followed by 2. Now I'll double to show the option to play for penalties and a good redouble. Hope we're on the same page.
Louk Verhees: Dbl. I tend to play Dbl for takeout here.
Joel Forssell: Dbl. Penalty.
Earle Fergusson: Dbl. Love to defend, if pard pulls that's OK too.
Kent Ritchie: Dbl. What else?
Kf Tung: 3. You have 12 points, 5 clubs, 4 spades, probably some strength in the red cards. Will partner bid 3N?
|
| 4. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
A J 4
A K 4
A 7 6 5 3 2
A
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
|
1
| |
|
Pass
|
Pass
|
1
|
Dbl
| |
|
Pass
|
1
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
Dbl
| 7
| 100
|
|
Pass
| 3
| 70
|
|
2NT
| 1
| 60
|
|
2
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 2
| 60
|
|
3
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: No clear direction, the panel double a second time, ostensibly for takeout.
Larry Cohen: 3. Partner will expect a near 2 opener with at least six diamonds---that is what I have. Partner could have: x x x x x x x x x x x x x, so I don't want to do anything bigger than this.
Barry Rigal: Pass. Why should pard hold a single high card here? For all I know, he might be 4-3-1-5. I plan to lead the A and shift to a diamond unless I can see that is hopeless. If we can't beat it, maybe partner with five spades will bid 2 now anyway.
Daniel Korbel: Dbl. Let's see how badly we can torture partner. He will know we have big defense, a big hand and only three spades.
Mel Colchamiro: 2. Sometimes I'm a wimp. I would have preferred 2 instead of the double of 1 and then I could double to show my strength.
Robert Sauve: 3. Partner is broke.
Gary Harper: Pass. Partner's hand is likely flat and ugly --- defending 2 could be our last chance at a plus. Partner's allowed to bid over 2 if they have spade length or latent diamond support.
Christopher Diamond: Dbl. Space saving to give him a chance to show what little he has. Will raise a spade rebid, correct clubs to diamonds.
Larry Meyer: 2. I'm not going to risk doubling them into game. Partner should be able to ruff some clubs in the short hand.
Andrew Krywaniuk: Pass. Lead the A and hope to beat it. I would have opened 2NT.
Paul McMullin: Dbl. Defending looks easier than declaring on this hand.
Chris Buchanan: Dbl. Showing a maximum and will let partner decide what action is best.
Hendrik Sharples: 2NT. . . what I should have opened in the first place! 3 might be better.
Allan Simon: 3NT. I would have opened 2NT. Now I'm gambling the diamonds come home.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Dbl. In my agreements this says: I have significant extra values and not a real spade fit. You can run if you really have nothing but I'm willing to play for penalties.
Joel Forssell: Dbl. Penalty.
Earle Fergusson: Dbl. Again happy to defend. If pard bids, I will raise.
Kent Ritchie: 3. Want to find out more about partner's shape.
Kf Tung: Dbl. You have a good hand, long diamonds, and almost opened 2.
|
| 5. IMPs. N-S vul.
| |
A 10 6 3
A 6
J 10 8 6 5
A J
|
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| |
|
|
|
1
|
Dbl
| |
|
1
|
Dbl
|
2
| ? |
Your call?
| Bid | Votes | Award
|
|
2
| 11
| 100
|
|
3
| 1
| 70
|
|
Pass
| 2
| 60
|
|
Dbl
| 1
| 50
|
|
3
| 0
| 40
|
|
2NT
| 0
| 30
|
|
Moderator: This problem takes us back to our bridge roots. When partner doubles a suit your takeout double showed support for, it was for penalty, an age-old way of uncovering a psych. Some partnerships play such a double as responsive, but the panelists prefer the old ways.
August Boehm: Pass. In old school, it showed spades to protect against a psych. Modernists use it to show cards. In any event, my hand lacks any outstanding features and partner is still there.
Mike Lawrence: 2. Some play North's double to show 7-plus points in support of spades. North is expected to have exactly four spades for this bid. Hence, my 2 bid. But some play that North's double shows the unbid suits---a responsive double promising similar values.
Zachary Grossack: Dbl. With a little bit of extra, I will offer a values, no-clear-direction double. Partner can act accordingly. Wrangling for 3NT here (shocking!).
Roger Lee: 3. Too good for 2, not enough for 4.
David Waterman: 2. Automatic, i think.
Gary Harper: 2. Assuming responsive double only applies after a raise, this should set trump and await further developments from partner.
Christopher Diamond: 2. Unless the young'uns are into something else, he basically bid spades so I'll raise.
Larry Meyer: 3. Partner asked me to choose between clubs and diamonds, so tell him.
Michael Dimich: 2. Bridge Bulletin Standard doesn't allow for change of suit responsive doubles.
Andrew Krywaniuk: 3. IIRC past contests have decided that partner's double is responsive. I've got more than enough for a free bid here.
Paul McMullin: 3. Hands like this keep my bidding contest scores down.
Chris Buchanan: 2. I will confirm the fit. Should play well even with a poor split.
Hendrik Sharples: 2. Smoking out the psych.
David Gordon: 3. If I get the chance I will shape out with 3.
Ig Nieuwenhuis: Pass. Nothing to add to the bidding at this time. Does depend a bit on the meaning of partner's double though: if it's agreed as responsive I should now bid 3. For me this is penalty of spades and the next double would be for takeout to the minors.
Earle Fergusson: 3. Take out the take outs.
Kent Ritchie: 4. Let partner decide.
Kf Tung: 2. You have 4 spades too.
|
|
